I thought there wasnt going to be any math here

Be careful- you don't want to end up on the hook for their legal expenses, but I think in the US the bar to clear for that is low, the suit should just 'not be frivolous'. Suing for a simple ban, on a non-monetised account, might slip into frivolous territory. generally, you need an argument that runs around the "it's their platform" defence, which remains strong as long as 230 stands.

A case in point is Jared Taylor's suit against Twitter. He argued, and the judge found the argument had merit, that at the time of his signing up with his American Renaissance account, the terms of service permitted his use (publicising and debating his ethno-nationalist viewpoint), and Twitter was holding itself out to be a free speech platform. As such, Twitter could not ban him for conduct that wasn't forbidden when he signed up.

After initial briefs and a hearing, Twitter succeeded in persuading Judge Kahn to dismiss two of our grounds for the suit, but on June 18, 2018, he upheld our claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Judge Kahn called our complaint “very eloquent,” adding that it was “hard to imagine a clearer public interest lawsuit,” and that “it goes to the heart of free speech principles that long precede our constitution.”

Our claim was that Twitter could be, in effect, guilty of false advertising by boasting about its support for free speech and then banning ideas it didn’t like. At the time we opened our accounts, Twitter’s terms of service reflected its claim to be “the free-speech wing of the free-speech movement.” [...]. Judge Kahn noted that after we had opened our accounts, Twitter changed its rules and decided it could ban any user for any reason. He agreed that this was potentially an “unconscionable” violation of the law.

[...]Twitter claimed that, win or lose, merely to have to face a suit of this kind would cause it irreparable damage. Twitter persuaded Facebook, Google, Reddit, Snap (Snapchat), TripAdvisor, Yelp, and others to file a joint brief, agreeing with Twitter that letting our suit go forward would “open a Pandora’s box of litigation burdens and claims of liability against providers.”

Taylor backed down, after a legally questionable ruling from a higher court that cited section 230, a law ultimately irrelevant to Taylor's argument, but didn't have to pay opponent's fees AFAIK.

His conclusion, which is worth quoting at some length, referred to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. This section has widely been interpreted — mistakenly, in the view of our lawyers — as giving social media companies the right to censor content and ban users for any reason. We had argued that our unfair-practices claim against Twitter didn’t even fall within the scope of Section 230, no matter how it is interpreted.

His reasoning was that while he would have liked to continue, he is self-aware and knows that 'Jared Taylor, white ethnonationalist' might not be the best deployment of what could be a great argument as he's easily made out to be a bogeyman. He didn't want to set a precedent against that argument in the case of his losing by being an unsympathetic plaintiff.

The court’s “command” to Judge Kahn to reverse himself was, for technical reasons, not a ruling that set a legal precedent. A formal rejection of our appeal would have set a precedent, making it much harder for any other plaintiff to sue social media companies in that jurisdiction — and the San Francisco Bay area, where so many of those companies are headquartered, is the ideal place to sue.