One of the criteria a publisher can remove speech for and still be protected is "otherwise objectionable." The executive order has no teeth as long as somebody

One of the criteria a publisher can remove speech for and still be protected is "otherwise objectionable." The executive order has no teeth as long as somebody finds the removed speech objectionable. And in this case, his speech wasnt removed, it was editorialized. It's a much more dangerous precedent to attempt to say "a private company is not allowed to speak in rebuttal to my speech," which is a downright nonsense claim. Of course a publisher can chime in with its own thoughts. The other part about inconsistent with terms of service and inadequate explanation are also easily circumvented by having tos that say "we can remove whatever we want" and replying with "objectionable" and a clarification of why to every removable. That all said, the idea of the Executive Order isn't completely nuts. If Twitter/Facebook have become the de facto public square, and they wish to remain it, can the government choose to extend first amendment protections to speakers on their platforms? In the same vein, should they be allowed to force non-anonymous use? Combined, Twitter/Facebook/Google can basically prevent ideas from spreading.