Or—and all these are in the view of the provider or a user—“otherwise objectionable”.
> But it absolutely does not protect against viewpoint or political discrimination.
Since political content could quite easily make either the provider or a user view content as objectionable, this claim does not seem to be grounded in the text. If you are prepared to cite case law or some other basis for accepting your claim that the definition of “otherwise objectionable” is limited in the way you suggest, I'd sure like to see that citation.
Furthermore, even if it was outside the scope of the Good Samaritan protection as you claim, the “shall not be considered the publisher” safe harbor is nowhere made contingent on not taking actions that are outside of Good Samaritan protection with regard to removing content.
> The whole idea that a company can just censor certain viewpoints is false. They will lose their legal immunity if they do that.
This is an interesting contention about the law, but while you keep repeating it, you haven't supported it.
But it absolutely does not protect against viewpoint or political discrimination. Which is what everyone who uses the XKCD comic is referring to.
The whole idea that a company can just censor certain viewpoints is false. They will lose their legal immunity if they do that.
It is only very specific things, like lewd content, that they are explicitly allowed to censor.