230 is a legal protection afforded to platforms which host user-generated content. It absolves them of legal liability for the content posted by their users, providing they moderate illegal content properly.

> Should 230 remove the right for companies/individuals/platforms to have a say in the content they publish?

If they wish to be afforded the legal protections offered by 230, yes. It is a choice - not an obligation. A trade-off.

> Should platforms not be able to make decisions about how they moderate their own platforms?

They should be able to, but, again, accepting the responsibility of being a platform rather than a publisher means that there should be limits to what can be considered inappropriate. There is certainly no easy answer for where that line is drawn, but it does need to be drawn. A heavy-handed moderation policy can effectively become publishing requirements.

I just don't understand how this is a sensible policy desicion apart from "I don't like how these platforms moderate, and i want them to be punished"

That interpretation is backwards. The "default state" of these websites would be getting sued into oblivion. 230 protected them from that, providing they act as neutral platforms. As they have continually expanded the list of content which is not allowed, whether or not they are acting as a neutral platform is being called into question.

Whenever one group accumulates too much power, that power is inevitably abused. The point of the policy is to limit the extent to which companies can control information.