[semimojo]

This provision does not allow platforms to remove whatever they wish, however. Courts have held that “otherwise objectionable” does not mean whatever a social media company objects to, but “must, at a minimum, involve or be similar” to obscenity, violence, or harassment. Political viewpoints, no matter how extreme or unpopular, do not fall under this category.

Well, I don't think that's been established in court, but it's probably not even important in the case of FB, Twitter and YouTube because every user agrees to the TOS as a condition of using the service.

Section 230 or not someone suing would have to show the company breached their own terms of service. I'm not up on any of the TOS agreements but I'd wager the techs' have protected themselves pretty well.

[SmokingJoe]

Well, I don't think that's been established in court,

It has.

but it's probably not even important in the case of FB, Twitter and YouTube because every user agrees to the TOS

TOS has nothing to do with it. If they lose their 230 no TOS is going to protect them.