What you call "moderating" is censorship.

No, it isn’t. If I kick someone out of my home for saying “the live-action Speed Racer movie sucked”, have I censored them? Hell no — they can go anywhere else that will have them, in meat- or cyberspace, and say the exact same thing. I’ve moderated their speech by telling them it isn’t welcome on my property; I didn’t infringe upon their right to express their objectively wrong opinion.

your attempt at settling the matter by saying it has been settled by law for many, many years now is also untrue

No, it isn’t. The law, as it stands right this moment (and regardless of any pending or in-progress court cases), says Twitter has the absolute legal right to decide what speech it will host. If you had an actual argument against this point, you could cite the law, statute, or “common law” court ruling that says the law can force Twitter to host certain kinds of speech. Since you can’t do that, you don’t have an argument.

You seem to think that only government can infringe on people’s rights.

No, I don’t. I know that private institutions and private individuals can infringe upon the rights of others. The key difference between the Chinese government and Twitter admins, then, is that Twitter admins can’t infringe upon someone else’s right to speak freely because they can’t control where someone else chooses to speak. Twitter admins can only choose whether they’ll allow people to speak on Twitter — which is their absolute legal right, as we’ve already established.

What you seem to lack is an understanding of what is considered public discourse which goes along with understanding censorship.

Having participated in public discourse via Twitter and other outlets (including Techdirt’s comments section) for years, I know what it is. And I know that Twitter, Techdirt, or any other site/service telling me to GTFO because I broke the rules (or because they plain don’t like me) doesn’t violate my civil rights in any way. If Twitter actively tried to suppress my speech on every website other than Twitter, maybe you would have a point. But they don’t (and can’t), so you don’t.

social media has been considered a "interactive computer service", so Sec 230 was applied and censorship was allowed

You mean “moderation”. Moderation is not censorship. If it were, you could legally sue Twitter for violating your First Amendment rights every time an admin/moderator deleted one of your tweets. But you can’t. Because telling you “we don’t do that here” and pointing to the rules isn’t violating your civil rights. It’s telling you that if you keep breaking the rules, you’re going to lose your spot on their property — a spot, might I add, to which you aren’t entitled.

the courts seem to be coming around to understanding them as a "information content provider"

[citation needed]

If you look at a more recent case where Trump was ordered to not block users from his twitter account, the decision specifically stated his account was seen as public discourse and therefore his blocking of accounts was seen by the court as censorship.

And if you look at that case closer, you’ll see that the decision was limited to Trump’s account specifically because the courts ruled that Trump using his account to conduct official government business made it a public forum of sorts. Trump can’t legally block American citizens from replying to (or viewing) his tweets because they technically count as government speech, and the government can’t block the citizens it serves from reading and responding to that speech. It didn’t rule that Twitter as a whole, or any other social media service, was a public forum.

This has essentially opened the door, I believe.

You believe wrongly.

we are now seeing litigation that is testing the boundaries of social media companies consideration as an "internet computer service", and pushing that they are "information content providers"

Y’know what’s funny? The same law that allows Twitter to avoid liability for third party speech is the same law that allows Breitbart and InfoWars to do the same. And since a court can reasonably infer that those two sites are “information content providers” (regardless of the veracity of that information), any change to 230 would affect all three sites regardless of that “classification issue” you think is an actual thing.

230 isn’t a law that protects social media sites. It protects all websites that accept third-party submissions, and the users of those websites, from being held liable for the speech of others. Mike Masnick can’t be held accountable for any of my comments, and neither he nor I can be held accountable for any replies to our individual comments. It also protects you from that same liability. Be thankful this is the case.

they seem to be getting the ire of too many people. Ultimately that could result in new laws.

And any law that tries to control what speech Twitter can and cannot, will and will not, must and must not host will run into a damned strong roadblock that’s been around for a couple of centuries: the First Amendment.

But I have to wonder: How badly do you want the government to take over Twitter and force it to host any and all legally protected speech? Because compelled speech and compelled association are in clear violation of the First Amendment, and if you’re going to root for the government in that instance, I’d have to wonder why.

You can’t make other people associate with you or listen to your speech. You’re not entitled to use someone else’s private property as your own personal soapbox. You have the right to speak freely; whether someone wants to listen or help you spread your speech is a decision they get to make for themselves. And neither you nor the government should be able to make that choice for them. If you think you can make a convincing argument for why every prior sentence in this paragraph shouldn’t be true…well, I wish you luck in that, because you’ll literally be arguing for fascism.