I suspect it's because "hate speech" is not, in fact, a category of unprotected speech under US law. Most legal scholars agree with this point, including many who are absolutely not fans of hate speech, like Ken White of Popehat:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/free-speec...

It’s an argument that pulls in a bunch of political baggage and just isn’t relevant to the source article. If Google does indeed have a double standard - if they demonetize other websites for hosting nasty comments while defending their right to host nasty comments themselves - that’s bad regardless of what Section 230 permits.

There is no double standard in arguing that platform creators shouldn't be legally liable for racist user comments while simultaneously arguing that platform creators don't need to be paid for hosting racist user comments.

I'm not a Googler, but my impression was that Google mostly holds themselves to this standard. Youtube routinely demonetizes videos with questionable content and blocks ads aimed at racist keywords.

For whatever it's worth, I would support the concern you're describing if it were simplified to remove the whole Section thing entirely. Specifically:

"It would be a double standard if Google refuses to display advertising on other third-party websites alongside racist user content, but then displayed advertising on their own first-party websites alongside racist user content."

Google clearly states that they have automated detection of racism, so highlighting examples of Google displaying for-profit advertising on racist speech in Google Groups posts or YouTube comments would be vastly more meaningful an argument that they're applying a more restrictive standard to their customers than they apply to themselves.

Either Google does hold those of their own sites that display advertising on user content to the same burden of moderation that they demand from the advertising customers — or they do not, and are therefore hypocritical to do so with others. Whether or not section 230 exists, or is applicable, it simply doesn't matter.

They make the argument hate speech is not a form of protected speech, but it is.

I apologize for my poorly constructed argument. I should have spoken more clearly and I was in a rush. I'll probably screw this explanation up too, but the apology stands regardless.

Hate speech isn't Section 230 protected speech, in my opinion. Copying from above, with modified italics placement:

> 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

This is a list of forms of speech that providers, under Section 230, may safely disregard constitutional protections for. Racist speech and other forms of hate speech are, at minimum, 'otherwise objectionable'; and therefore they are not forms of speech protected by Section 230.