[1.] Under current law, Twitter, Facebook, and the like are immune as platforms, regardless of whether they edit (including in a politicized way). Like it or not, but this was a deliberate decision by Congress. You might prefer an "if you restrict your users' speech, you become liable for the speech you allow" model. Indeed, that was the model accepted by the court in Stratton Oakmont. But Congress rejected this model, and that rejection stands so long as § 230 remains in its current form. (I'll have more technical statutory details on this in a later post.)


The way the law is written, Twitter isn’t a publisher. They can explicitly say they hate Republicans and will edit all their posts. That doesn’t matter based on the statutory code. They are a platform, and cannot be a publisher under existing law. It would take an act of Congress to change that. So the Executive Order is worthless and not legally allowed, except that it will force these companies to fight it in court, and serves as red meat to his base, which may have been the whole point.