The problem with your position (with which I largely agree), and the attendant 230(2) protection is, like wiretapping laws, the privilege of determining what constitutes “otherwise objectionable” was written in and for another time. At the time this privilege was granted, civil discourse was still the standard. Disagreement was not by its very existence “otherwise objectionable”. It was presumed that the grey area would be handled by and as adults.
They grey areas should be (relatively) easy for adults, educated and mature in a civil society, to navigate. There are some hard questions. The Supreme Court spent years and reams of paper trying to define civil rights. So be it, a civil society matures.
But Big Tech has shown that is no longer the case. If they find something they consider otherwise objectionable Google may block funding as with Zerohedge or National Review (taking your toys and going home), labeling obvious political satire as manipulated media on Twitter (name calling), built in review processes for "otherwise objectionable" speech (telling teacher). These policies and responses are fundamentally childish in nature. Mature adults should have privileges, children by and large do not, and only receive them when they demonstrate that they can handle them responsibly. If a child finds eating vegetables otherwise objectionable the response of the parent is that the child does not have the privilege of defining otherwise objectionable.
When Big Tech shows it can handle privileges, it should have them back. In the meantime, if they choose to behave like children, they may need to have their privileges taken away.
Now go to your room.