Trying to preach liberalism is like selling a book where you skipped every other word...how do people keep falling for this lie?

Actually they are legally required to not discriminate based on content. They cannot choose what content is on their platform. They can mark content as not safe for children. If they do otherwise they lose all protections under law when pedophiles post illegal content on their platforms. I'm just waiting for Trump to crack down on them and shut them down every time someone posts illegal content.

Go through the laws and you'll find I'm correct. If you are a provider you can choose who you contract with, but once you are contracted (End User License Agreement which is open to anyone to join) you cannot pick and choose the content or you lose the protections. You can choose to block whatever you want, but you lose the protections from liability.
So in this case they chose to block people like Alex Jones and the New York Post, but they now lose the protections of law. So every time someone posts something illegal on their platform they can be shut down and people can be arrested and investigated.

You missed the point as usual. Online platforms/providers are not liable according to the law if they take it down when made aware of it within a reasonable amount of time as long as they follow the rules for a platform/provider which is they cannot pick and choose what content they host. If they do that they are liable and accessories to the crime.
Because they choose what can be seen and what is removed, they are no longer platforms/providers, they fall within the law as content creators, which are responsible for everything on their sites.

You are absolutely correct. Kami is just a censorship supporter. Anyone who disagrees is spouting hate speech and it’s ok to censor, beat or kill them.

I said the platform *could* be in trouble, depending. Depending on what? Depending on a lot: what the platform does, what it holds itself out as, what it actually is, how it acts, what was said by its users, what their mods did or didn't do, what happened next.

One example: This website, ImgFlip, does employ content moderation. That puts it in the bucket of "content creator" under your own definition.

Further, people make the mistake of assuming laws are static, that new legal precedents can't be set, that FCC rules in effect one day cannot be reversed the next. This is an enormously active topic in the law and I would always err on the side of caution.

Not to mention: law is not the only proper mode of analysis when dealing with these issues.

In a moral sense, online platforms are certainly responsible for failing to mod any content that they ought to.

In a business sense, a mass shooting or two accompanied by a racist manifesto that can be directly linked up with a platform is not great for branding.

The platform clearly breaks the definition of a platform/provider, therefore they do not get the protections of law. Its really simple.

ImgFlip has moderators and does censor content so it also is not a platform/provider. So you could file a lawsuit the moment someone posted illegal content and they could be shut down.

New laws can be made, but the current laws are very clear.

Morals should inform the creation, abolishment, and alteration of laws. Unfortunately I don't see a lot of morals in government. Nothing gets passed like that unless the politicians are getting pressure from their constituents. Take the 2nd stimulus check. We needed it 6 months ago, they are still arguing over which mega-corps get the money and how much to give to regular people.

I agree with your last 2, with the caveat that the law still stands regardless of their moral choice.

lokiare is correct There is a difference in the law between a news site ( NY time, New york Post, WAPO) then Content providers/platform social media sites News sites may ban any content they want with or without reason social media sites are giving greater latitude and freedom in law with regards to lawsuites (ie defamation and slander ) in return they are generally prohibited from restricting content unless it violates pornography laws or copyright laws. Federal law 512 section 230 LOOK IT UP before posting nonsense.