That is resoundingly wrong. Section 230 is used to prevent frivolous lawsuits against a platform. If a 3rd party posts something slanderous or libelous or otherwise causes a harm to another party on a specific platform, which allows content creators to post content without prior moderation, then the platform cannot be held liable. If I run a platform and John Q calls you a baby raping faggot and posts a fake video of you raping a baby, then you can't sue me for letting that post go public. You can sue John Q, but not me. I'm not "curating content" or "acting as a publisher" by censoring content that I feel interferes with my business model, hurts my relationship with my advertisers, or that I find distasteful or inappropriate. Removing your posts, regardless of it's content or my reason for doing it, is not publishing. It is not curating anything. I am allowed to be biased in my censorship. Nothing in Section 230 forbids this. Nothing in 230 turns me into a publisher for doing what I think is best for my company regarding censorship. You acknowledge that I'm allowed to censor people calling other's nigger, for example. Where is that line between calling people niggers = bad, and therefore censorship is allowed, and saying the election was stolen = okay, so censorship turns me into a publisher? No such line exists. You can't arbitrarily pick and choose what censorship is allowed and what censorship loses your protections. The only clear line, and the only acknowledged legal line, is at where the post violates law. In which case, the platform is required to censor or face civil and criminal charges for the post.