"The goal is to remove their liability."

Technically, this is incorrect. Under the current practices, they are idemnified from liability, which they should not be because they are editing content, censoring users, and shaping narratives. Publishers are liable for what they publish, but the tech platforms have assumed the ability to choose what is published on their platforms without being liable for it, and that's what is being reviewed and proposed to eliminate.

It is making them liable for what is published that is being done.

What is being removed is their indemnity from liability that is afforded to common carriers, such as phone companies that do not edit, censor, or shape narratives.

The tech platforms, should the US simply actually hold them liable for what is published if they edit, censor, and shape narratives, theoretically could remain indemnified from liability if they stop that crap.

The EU isn't giving them that option, and they are far too invested in narrative control IMHO to give it up just retain their practical indemnification in the US market.

Overall, you're spot on in how this will advance censorship, just confusing liability with indemnity from liability.

Thanks!