This action concerns, among other things, U.S. Code § 230. > Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Tele

This action concerns, among other things, U.S. Code § 230. > Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a landmark piece of Internet legislation in the United States, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicati... Through his action, the president appears to be directing the executive branch to use a more narrow interpretation of Section 230 than has been used previously: > ... Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the criteria of subparagraph (c)(2)(A), it is engaged in editorial conduct. It is the policy of the United States that such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-online-censorship/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-or... (c)(2)(A) reads: > (c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material > (2) Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 To summarize, the president is directing his administration to disregard "Good Samaritan" protections for services that don't strictly meet the exception given in (c)(2)(A). The phrases "good faith" and "otherwise objectionable" seem broad enough to allow just about any form of censorship a company might want to engage in, while continuing to enjoy Good Samaritan protection. If so, what exactly does the administration gain here?