While the Pundits mock @realDonaldTrump in the MSM for saying he is looking at putting Social Media out of business, or shutting them down, he was referring to the 230(c)(1) immunity they survive under.

If he revokes that 230(c)(1) immunity, the lawsuits alone will shut them down, they are fully exposed from everything from censorship to child trafficking, child porn that they allow to go on in the shadows. The amount of criminal activity that goes on is staggering

Criminal threats, even terrorists using their platforms to plot attacks on US Soil. Social Media may try & play it cool, but when Trump pens an Executive Order to revoke their 47 U.S.C. § 230.(c)(1) immunity due to non-compliance as a neutral platform, & declare them a publisher

Neutral platforms don't have the privilege of selective censoring, idealogical & political bias, and they can't claim to hide behind the claim of being a private company, both Twitter and FaceBook are publicly traded, and they can't claim that and be 230.(c)(1) compliant.

230.(c)(1) was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against "Internet service providers" in the early 1990s that had different interpretations of whether the services providers should be treated as publishers or distributors of content created by its users.

Twitter & FaceBook aren't ISPs, they are a platform, initially started as private companies, but when they sold out for the money and went public, their statuses changed drastically and have never been challenged under 230(c)(1) or their immunity status under that Section.

DJT is going to challenge that status, based on their behavior as a non-neutral platform, with their blatant idealogical & political bias. Sure they'll try and fight it in court but the law is pretty clear, just never enforced.

Under the Communications Decency Act the actual language in the CDA makes public providers responsible for indecent content posted by users. Twitter and Facebook exploit the 230(c)(1) immunity that was intended for ISP's that are truly neutral utility providers.

47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Keywords being provider & publisher

Under standard common-law principles, a person or entity that publishes a defamatory statement by another bears the same liability for the statement as if he or she had initially created it. This also extends to criminal acts.

The key to this is a publisher can be held liable for anything that appears within its pages when this "publisher" has the knowledge, opportunity, and ability to exercise editorial control over the content of its publications.

Twitter & FaceBook both invoke editorial privileges

Twitter & FaceBook aren't ISPs and don't truly qualify for that 230(c)(1) status, but they spread around enough money in the Swamp to allow them to hide behind that 230(c)(1) immunity. Those days are numbered.

So when they exercise traditional editorial functions over user submitted content, such as deciding whether to publish, remove, or edit material, they lose their immunity because the edits materially alter the meaning of the content & is not evenly applied.

Do this Mr President it's time to challenge these giants and bring them to the light and make them responsible for their actions

To answer the many questions I'm getting, for those of that are old enough to remember AOL, they were able to fall into the 203(c)(1) protection because AOL "technically" qualified as an ISP. This was back in the days of dial up. AOL had their own servers you mounted via modem

AOL was one of the first if not the first Social Media Platform where users could post content, pictures, live chat, whatever, and AOL provided not only the platform but the ability to mount the World Wide Web.

Twitter and FaceBook are not ISP just a platform

However for years Twitter and FaceBook have been allowed to ride the coattails of the precedent AOL set, but they aren't ISPs and the exercise full publishing & editorial powers over content. That makes them a publisher.

That on top of their actively bias application of their editorial standards and censoring empowers them over complete control of content and unbalanced application.