I have been working on internet forums for 24 years now. In the late 90s, I ran the most popular forum on the internet, which at it's peak was the 6th most popular website in the world. The disclaimer policy message you used to see about fair use and safe harbor, on thousands of websites before entering ... was written by me. The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was written before I was involved with any of this stuff; but I was around to see the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) happen. I was around to see Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) happen. Needless to say, I'm pretty bonafide when it comes to talking about these issues. The onerous laws of the CDA, DMCA and COPPA have pretty much informed my decision making and my libertarian ideology during the past 20 years. I am firmly against censorship, government regulation and I am extremely pro-free speech. Section 230 of the CDA was specifically put in place to provide safe harbor to online platforms, to protect them from liability from content created by their users. It is an extremely important measure in promoting growth of the internet. In case you are unaware... section 230 of the CDA provides safe harbor to online platforms, provided they are offering their platform in good faith to the end users. Good faith is pretty subjective, but over the years it has been understood to mean protecting the users from illegal activity, and protecting copyright holders. While the majority of the CDA is a restriction on free speech, this one particular provision somehow has come to dominate internet culture. So Trump signed an executive order today, to limit 230 protection from online platforms in specific cases. This is government regulation and overreach, isn't it? I should be against this, shouldn't I? Well no... and no. In fact, I've been advocating for exactly what Trump did today for many years now. Let me explain why. As I previously stated, 230 protection provides safe harbor, as long as your platform is provided in good faith. What is "good faith"? In my eyes, good faith means an effort to uphold the laws and rights of the end users. Laws, naturally meaning you should be moderating out illegal activity such as threatening calls-to-action, privacy violations, and what the government really cares about: piracy and copyright violations. The rights of the end users, I would understand to be: upholding their first amendment rights to free speech and assembly. Trump's EO on section 230 of the CDA is huge. But it is NOT government regulation. If anything, its the exact opposite. There is a difference between a "positive right" and a "negative right". A negative right, is a right irrespective of others. The first amendment is a negative right. It's something you have naturally, and it does not require others for you to have it. Negative rights are inalienable, because no one gave you those rights. Your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness. A positive right, is a right granted to you by others, such as the government. By this definition, a positive right, is not a right at all... but a privilege. And privileges can be revoked by the government who gave it to you. 230 protection is a positive right. Revoking 230 protection is not government interference, if anything, its a removal of government interference. It is quite literally, de-regulation. For years, platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc... have properly protected the rights of the end users. They moderated content only in the effect to protect it's users from harrasment, calls to action and illegal activity. 230 protection is afforded to online platforms BY DEFAULT. It is only when you violate your requirements of good faith that 230 protection could possibly be considered invalid. We've seen this over the years as the FBI takes down websites for hosting piracy and child pornagraphy. But traditionaly, the government has never revoked 230 protection to websites for violating the first amendment; for violating the rights of their end users. Trump's EO ends this, and opens the door to protecting the free speech of all Americans on the internet. What he has done, is literally the first job of ALL public servants in America. Your local politicians, your mayors, your governors, and even the President has sworn to this job... "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." What do I think opened this door? On July 9, 2019, the 2nd Curcuit Federal Court of Appeals made the CORRECT decision that Trump could not legally block users on his Twitter account. The accepted argument was that Trump's Twitter was a public forum to the first amendment: the right to petition the government a redress of grievances. Unfortunately, for Twitter, this decision should be a two way street. If Trump can not block people on Twitter, because doing so removes a citizen's ability to petition their government a redress of grievances... then Twitter can not block people from Twitter either, for the same reason. This is a rather simple argument to make, and one that Trump has for some reason never argued in favor of revoking Twitter's 230 protection in the past. But what did Trump go after Twitter for? For editorializing one of his tweets. News agencies and reporters DO NOT have 230 protection. They do not have safe harbor. They are responsible for the articles and content they publish. As such, they have no obligation to provide a neutral platform in good faith for their end users (viewers/readers). If they commit slander or libel, they are rightly subject to litigation and punishment. Twitter has retained their 230 protection because they arguably remained a platform. But the moment they editorialized one of Trump's tweets; a tweet in which he was posting an OPINION, they ceased to be a platform. At that moment, in Trump's eyes, they became a publisher, and became subject to the same litigation and punishment as any news outlet. I would argue they ceased to be a neutral platform years ago, but I'm just a nobody, and my opinion doesn't matter.