Thread by @ProjectVirginia

In case there is any confusion, Twitter lost its platform status under CDA 230 the moment it changed the character of Trump's post by adding a warning label.

That act made it the publisher of the end product and voided its liability protections as a platform.

As a result, Twitter's decision to edit Trump's post will go down in history as one of the worst business decisions ever, since Twitter's model is utterly dependent on its liability shield.

Lawsuit avalanche is coming, might not be much if anything left after.

The business-fatal mistake. They will study this in business school, in the future, on the great list of epic business catastrophes.

These edits change the character of the content as surely as when one edits a photo for comic effect.

Allegedly, the draft EO, precisely along the lines of what I have described here. Those snarkily dropping @BadLegalTakes references neglect the history of court rulings that impact the issue and make publisher-or-platform a material question.

kateklonick.com/wp-content/upl…

Reading through the EO, the specific legal argument is that the 230(c)(2) liability shield depends specifically on "good faith", which is where the FTC comes in.

The 2nd half of the EO is directing the FTC to take action against "deceptive and unfair trade practices".

As every conservative knows, Twitter's trade practices are unfair and deceptive to the extreme, and there is extensive hard evidence of bad faith.

The arbitrary, ideological choices of when to enforce ToS and when not to is what will ultimately undermine any good faith defense.