This is a double edged sword. If we consider this moderation as speech then dang becomes liable for it. The section 230 protection is: >No provider or user o

This is a double edged sword. If we consider this moderation as speech then dang becomes liable for it. The section 230 protection is: >No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. A separate concept of speech by moderation isn't covered by this. At least not obviously and clearly as if we treat posts as speech by the user alone.