Additionally to this: for anyone who wants to assert that there's some implied requirement of "neutrality," I invite them to read what the authors of the law had to say quite recently.

"The first is that Section 230 does not require political neutrality. Claiming to "interpret" Section 230 to require political neutrality, or to condition its Good Samaritan protections on political neutrality, would erase the law we wrote and substitute a completely different one, with opposite effect. The second is that any governmental attempt to enforce political neutrality on websites would be hopelessly subjective, complicated, burdensome, and unworkable. The third is that any such legislation or regulation intended to override a website's moderation decisions would amount to compelling speech, in violation of the First Amendment" (pg 17)

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7213938-2020-09-17-C...