https://twitter.com/Liz_Wheeler/status/1265463081997484032
This isn't going to end well, and unless Twitter is going to exercise this impartially (which is impossible given a human is involved), they are going to lose their platform status, and justifiably so.
The trouble with Twitter (in some people's view) is that they play both sides- they're just a public platform when there is something illegal that they're hosting, but they're a curator when they don't like what you've posted.
Like every newspaper website that has a comment section. They are responsible for the parts they publish but not the user generated comments. There is no legal requirement to be one or the other.
For whatever reason, most people seem to get this backwards.
Here is the relevant legal code Section 230 C1: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service, a platform, shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
There is nothing in the law that says a publisher is responsible for user generated contact (even if they moderate it). In fact the law says just the opposite.
Edit: added note in parenthesis
I think you're misunderstanding the section. A publisher of content is very much responsible for it. After all, it says that "no provider [...], a platform, shall be treated as the publisher" i.e. a platform is not a publisher (so therefore a platform is not liable).
However, if you stop being just a 'platform', you could become liable for the content you host. I think moderation in general is fine, but if you started curating the content I think you could get in trouble.
0. https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/21/18700605/section-230-inte...
I think the article's headline "says it doesn’t matter if you’re a publisher or a platform" is incorrect, because if sec 230 eliminated that distinction it would be in conflict with the first amendment. The interviewee also never makes this claim. It's more so that current rulings of section 230 simply say that you don't "publish" but "platform" user generated content.
As far as I know the contention is where the limits of this are. There definitely is a point where it stops, since a digital magazine very much is a publisher and responsible for the articles it puts out. Some people think heavily curating already means that it's not just user generated content, while others think it's fine.
In the end, I think this is something that will eventually be decided by a (supreme?) court ruling. Trump won't get to decide this alone, but I don't think it's impossible for him to escalate this.