[semimojo]

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.

The part about political viewpoints is the author's opinion and not addressed by the case he cites.

Do you wonder why, after all the complaints by conservatives over the last few years, there aren't a bunch of judgments against the tech's for political discrimination?

Do you think it may be because that discrimination isn't illegal?

[SmokingJoe]

The part about political viewpoints is the author's opinion and not addressed by the case he cites.

It is actually. That's exactly what the case was about.

Do you wonder why, after all the complaints by conservatives over the last few years, there aren't a bunch of judgments against the tech’s for political discrimination?

They have 230 protection. Remove the 230 protection and see what happens to these social media monopolies in court. Twitter has made it really easy for Trump to crack down.
They shouldn't have “fact checked” an entirety correct tweet from President Trump with a bunch of lies and fake news from CNN and the Washington Post.
The facts are very easy to determine.