Section 230 is performing *exactly* as designed after the ruling in Oakmont v. Prodigy- it was written to make that not possible ever again. I.e., that a content provider could not get in trouble for censoring objectionable content on their platform- specifically, content that may not even have anything to do with them, but could only cause them to get embroiled in some other legal battle. It granted carte blanche; exactly as it was designed to do.
Isn't it that content providers cannot be held liable for any content posted by it's users ?
Afaik (ianal) censoring objectionable content isn't an issue since it's the content provider's platform and they get to decide what goes on it or not?
No guarantees though: you-know-who was democratically elected as well...
Damn, I didn't know Voldemort got elected, got more Harry Potter trivia ?
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis