well, i admire you for taking the time to look through the USC to find relevant federal law. But your "yeah no ..." and certainty in the law, especially in the US code of all things, makes me feel like maybe you don't understand the scope of the law.
You will note, the USC is broad brush. What matters is less the exact letter of the law, per se, compared to what we've established as legal precedent.
That is to say, sure, we can interpret that 47 U.S.C. §230 shields our site and staff from suicide liability... but does it?
And the answer is, we're not sure. Suicide liability is a very uncovered area of the law: a wild place. The United States Code is a very thin outer layer of law.
Maybe a court would find that a site administrator that is friends with a suicidee counts as a special relationship, or that not answering a user with a history of suicidal posts with a clear answer that we aren't equipped to handle that sort of thing might be an act of negligence.
Maybe Ponyville isn't an "interactive computer service" as defined by statute. Which, it looks like, it arguably might not be.
Maybe suicidal conduct is not inclusive of the terms "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable ..."
i would argue it isn't: doesn't seem to be the Congressional intent
i could go on and on and on and on. i could probably go on for like, thirty straight pages.
if it wasn't something worth worrying about, i don't think it'd have been something to be worth doing, or worth continuing to do
but i don't want our site to be the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. of suicide liability law, and i think this policy is absolutely for the best.
it has nothing to do with the "pleasantness" of the thread. this is the best way we have of protecting the user, the site, and the staff.