Section 230 gives online platform providers federal immunity from lawsuits. They can quite literally ban anyone for any reason. Immunity is immunity. It's like diplomatic immunity. It supersedes other laws."
So there is no point in having terms of service because there is no consequence when the company breaks them. This is why sec 230 should not apply to twitter Youtube and Farcebook. However that is not the argument I am making.
Sec 230 states
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."
OK this protects them from liability for the things published by third parties. However, what about all the things they will NOT publish, or that they delete or censor based on their own political bias? Why can't they be held liable for erasing years worth of someone's content? They are claiming that it is not their content if it says something bad but they kept it up, yet it is their content if they erase it. By refusing some and not others on a political bias that is discrimination and a violation of free speech. If the pretext to remove content in the terms of service and yet the person being deleted did not break the terms of service then this is a still a breech of contract and the company should be sued.
I agreed not to advocate violence towards any group of people. I did not agree to censor all criticism of Israel because that is NOT hate speech by definition. And yet based on accusation alone these social media sites can remove everything you have done without warming or consequence.