Section 230 was created to mirror the protections telephone carriers needed for the illegal or annoying common carrier calls they delivered. This law was not intended to protect websites from third party content liability but to protect ISPs. Still; Section 230 has been twisted by American courts now to clearly do this as if this was the intention. -Oops. This is why the nternet began in America.

Depending on the oligarch deciding, the ability of the website owner to edit or delete a comment will or will not create vicarious liability for anonymous comments. The more proper method for a legal attack would have been to seek the identity of the anonymous commentator.

An even more solid and certain legal attack strategy would be to take legal action against the host of the website or the nameserver like “HostGator” is here. Most hosts have a TOS that prohibits allowing bad anonymous comments to remain if violating the rights of another. Failure to remove defamation after given notice is failure to enforce the TOS in section 5 here accidentally shedding the Section 230 cloak of AUP(E) Defamation policy.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. None result in a happy cat.
Still; Issue and claim estoppel preclusion now protect the prior defendant but might not prohibit skinning a different cat altogether for these exact claims? I do not remember this from law school nut would be an interesting class topic.