They are clearly a content moderator. You can tell that by trying to post a nude picture.

Content moderation does not reduce or remove the liability protection of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

Not real sure how you can put political campaign ads in the same bucket as child pornography and still claim "good faith" ?

Where did I say anything about child pornography?!

Are you perhaps confused because I mentioned the Communications Decency Act? It's true that one of the purposes of the CDA was to regulate pornography on the internet (although I don't think it was about child pornography--the pornography concern was about children seeing pornography on the net), but those parts of the CDA were struck by the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).

The CDA also, in section 230, said that providers and users of interactive computer services are not to be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Section 230 was not struct down in Reno v. ACLU, and remains in force.

Intent. The law always uses intent. To compare political ads to the list below is facetious at best and I was calling out one example of content that could be moderated with protection and comparing it to a political ad. You seemed bothered by the comparison. As would most rational folks be. Not sure why this is difficult to understand.

(2)Civil liability 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

Actually, law does not always use intent. Intent is the primary basis for one of the philosophies of jurisprudence, not every judicial body/judge follows that. See textualism for an example where intent is irrelevant.

Found the lawyer

Hah. I'm flattered, but I have never been remotely associated with law either through education or through work. :)

Would you agree "good faith" implies intent is measured ?

Good faith implies intent of the entity is measured, not necessarily of the way the law is written. Textualists like Gorsuch would actually not read into the intent of the law writers and interpret "good faith" how he pleases cause that's as specific as the written law is. Don't you agree?

Not sure I know the supreme court well enough to judge their judging

I just try to interpret the laws as they are written with my limited legal experience :)

That said I think I can agree