There is no clause matching your assertion in the rather short law passed 25 years ago and no case law asserting your erroneous interpretation. I'd ask you to provide such but we both know there is none. Neither editorial selection nor removal has anything to do with 230 immunity. The law is working as written and intended.

It isn't merely a grey area. The law was deliberately intended to support editorial selection and even deletion of content offensive to the platform owners sensibilities while explicitly preserving their protection from liability for their users content. This is supported by a plain reading of the text and the words of the men who wrote it.

First the law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

> (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

>(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

Now the words of Ron Wyden

>Republican Congressman Chris Cox and I wrote Section 230 in 1996 to give up-and-coming tech companies a sword and a shield, and to foster free speech and innovation online.
Essentially, 230 says that users, not the website that hosts their content, are the ones responsible for what they post, whether on Facebook or in the comments section of a news article. That's what I call the shield.

> But it also gave companies a sword so that they can take down offensive content, lies and slime — the stuff that may be protected by the First Amendment but that most people do not want to experience online. And so they are free to take down white supremacist content or flag tweets that glorify violence (as Twitter did with President Trump's recent tweet) without fear of being sued for bias or even of having their site shut down.

Your positions isn't merely incorrect it is directly counterfactual. It's an example of replacing actual known reality with the counterfactual in order to obtain a rhetorical advantage.

It is more advantageous to start from the lie that platform owners have somehow been violating or abusing the law outrageously and something must be done about it compared to the actual reality that the law is working as intended and you wish to change it because there is both a general feeling that existing laws and privileges ought to be enforced and that new laws need be examined before being enacted.

The prevalence of people of a particular political stripe to literally just making up alternative facts in response to inconvenient reality is deeply challenging to productive dialogue because its impossible to start out with a reasonable basis for discussion one must instead rewind to figure out which part of your fellows assumptions are based on purely fabricated reality. I expect you have taken it as a given that the line you were fed was based on reality. You are mistaken. I strongly encourage you to read both the laws and the words of the man who cowrote it.