I don’t want to add credence to such a poorly worded and misguided comment, but 230 is referring to Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. No-scoped refers to killing something so quickly with a sniper rifle so fast you don’t even take the time to look through your scope (in first person shooter video games).
They were trying to say that they expect congress to amend or repeal Section 230, which protects content hosts from legal liability for content created by someone else.
No-scope is a gaming term for sniping someone from a sniper rifle without zooming in using the scope. Very difficult to do, and this is a weird application of the phrase. 230 about to be “nuked” would probably be more applicable. It implies destroyed by pushing a button. No effort involved and immediate annihilation.
230 is getting no scoped, meaning no one will care about reforming it or even repealing it.
Section 230 is an internet legislation that gives social media companies a pass on their users actions. E.g. if CNN/Fox/BBC publishes something fake on their website, as a publisher they will be legally liable to what they publish. If a user on facebook posts something similar then facebook wont get in trouble because they are not regarded as the publishers. It was created to help boost social media site momentum during the Obama administration.
Now recently since facebook/twitter have been moving into becoming the arbiters of what is true and not which makes them publishers.
From a fairness point of view, why should these social media sites benefit from section 230 while traditional media doesn't?
