There's a lot of misconceptions and misinformation in regards to 230, one has to look at these things in context. When the law was originally written, there were genuine liability concerns in regards to user-generated content. The often-touted example is a phone call - if person A calls person B over a landline (medium) using the AT&T service (platform) and they discuss an illegal activity, is AT&T liable, or an accomplice, for making that call happen? Well, no - of course not. AT&T provides an open platform and it's the users who have engaged in an illegal activity. The same thought process has been applied to the early Internet in an effort to enable its growth without too many worries in regards to liability. No website is treated as a publisher of content generated by a third party, which makes them immune to most civil liability.
The situation today is quite different - online platforms do deploy heavy moderation and selectively choose what is and is not acceptable on their platforms, and this selection goes beyond what is and isn't legal. By definition, they have now chosen to publish some content and not other content, in a manner that goes beyond the Good Samaritan element of the law. By choosing what they are unwilling to publish on the platform, they are unwittingly also outlining what they're happy publishing, which should prompt a revisit of the Communications Decency Act as a whole.
We can parrot "it's a private company, they can do what they want" all day, but they're a private company that can't be sued like any other private company in any other sector of industry. Moreover, there's a fair bit of shady anti-trust practices going on in regards to new, alternative platforms, which is highly suspect. The Parler situation should frighten people, it shouldn't be celebrated, regardless of the alleged content in question.
First you're removed from online storefronts (simultaneously, mind you), then you're denied web hosting (with AWS owning the majority of this space, then Microsoft in second place, then Google) and your domain is stricken from the registrar, the last step is payment processing denial, which may have already happened. Once Visa and Mastercard decide that you're high risk and you end up on the MATCH list, you effectively cease to exist - I fail how that system of dominoes doesn't encourage monopolistic practices. We keep hearing "build your own platforms", but it's looking like people are expected to build their own Internet infrastructure and banking system also. This is a dangerous precedent.
At some point the government will have to step in, or something's got to give in the hosting and credit card processing space. Section 230 has to return to its original intent - providing a shield against civil liability in return for creating open platforms as long as the content posted is legal. Anything short of that will only lead to more purges, more resentment and more division. This is not the way the Internet was supposed to work.