> However, if CNN has a comments section on their website, they aren't liable for the posts made by random people in the comments, even if they moderate those c

> However, if CNN has a comments section on their website, they aren't liable for the posts made by random people in the comments, even if they moderate those comments. They have the same section 230 protections as twitter. Moderation (in the form of removal) is much different from modifying the content of the post, even if to provide 'fact-checking'. I'm fine with twitter removing the president, I don't see why they should have to host him. But they are desperate for anyone to actually use their website, so... > If the content of the "Fact Check" posted by twitter is illegal (e.g. libel), Trump could sue them in court for libel and win damages, regardless of Section 230. I'm not a legal expert, so if this is the case, that's great! From what I read, the executive order supposedly made this legal, but if it already was, then props to the legislature for making it legal, and props to the president for not expanding executive power and just reiterating what congress and the courts have already made law.