If that’s what you're saying, then you’ve got it completely wrong. Let me try this one more time.
Section 230 gives internet providers and platforms unique legal protection. They're not responsible for the content that other individuals place on that platform (with some exceptions). It’s that legal protection that's at issue, not the business's first amendment protections. Under 230, an internet platform doesn’t need those protections because they don’t publish content, they simply host it. Sure, some sites have moderated content, this site included.
But moderation outside established rules, or decisions that target specific types of content for removal, starts to look like a publisher making editorial decisions about content.
The question is: when does a social medi] site, which is a host for content, no longer become a platform or host and become a publisher? If you’re a publisher, no section 230 protections are available, and publishers are responsible for the content they publish.
Sure, publishers have 1st Amendment protection from govt censorship. That means the govt can’t require a publisher to remove content. Publishers are NOT a immune from liability for damages that might arise from content posted on their platforms, or editorial decisions that arbitrarily remove content.
In fact,
Facebook has argued at times that it’s a platform, and also argued that it’s a publisher. Which is it, and what liability should or should not accrue to Facebook for its editorial decisions?