> and I think Twitter shouldn't be protected by 230 for their actions

I don't see how. Their actions are explicitly what are protected:

> 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

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

What do the words “in good faith” mean in that context?

> What do the words “in good faith” mean in that context?

Essentially nothing, which is why a few of the proposed bills to punish tech companies for removing content have tried to turn that into a clause with teeth.

Basically if you took twitters actions and did the exact opposite it would be "in good faith". They just don't give a fuck since they assume they won't suffer consequences.

Hiding negative articles about Biden that wouldn't have been hidden if they were about Trump goes under which of those kinds? Section 230 lets you filter out unrelated disturbing content like porn, it doesn't let you inject political bias.

> Section 230 lets you filter out unrelated disturbing content like porn, it doesn't let you inject political bias.

It's important to remember that it's the first amendment that protects Twitter ability to filter anything it wants on its own platform, but it's the "material that the provider or user considers...otherwise objectionable" part of Section 230 that maintains the liability shield for other content that remains on their platform. That covers removal of essentially any content.

Whether it covers it or not is up to the courts to decide.