I’m not against these companies losing their Section 230 immunity. Social media platforms are, in my personal opinion, publishers in their current form.

If they went back to operating as “friends and family feed providers” then letting them keep their 230 immunity would be easier to justify.

Yes, if they went back to being chronological feeds of people you follow, then they should get to keep Section 230 immunity.

When they are making editorial decisions about what to content to promote to you and what content to hide from you, then they should lose it.

Section 230 doesn't say anything about publishers. That was entirely made up by chronically online arguers.

What it does say is you aren't liable for something someone else wrote.

It doesn't create liability for things not covered by it.

Guess who decides the order and contents of Facebook feeds? Facebook does. So they wouldn't be liable for someone writing a post saying "gas the jews" but they would still be liable for choosing to show it at the top of everyone's front page, if that was a choice, because the front page was choice-based rather than chronological.

You are relying on the wrong people to be able to understand that nuanced distinction.