The EO mentions "good faith" several times, and as far as I can see none of them say it's about complying with his secret personal likes or dislikes or whatever:
"In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in
“good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in
“good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree."
Of import seems to be "deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree." So here the EO criticizes social media not for the content they HOST, but for they content they unfairly REMOVE under the guise of it being "objectionable." Doesn't seem like that applies here, since the farms doesn't really ever seem to remove any legal content or ban people for their opinions no matter if they're stupid or offensive or whatever
Here's the next two references:
"(ii) the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not
“taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be
“taken in good faith” if they are:
(A) deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
(B) taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and"
again, the mentions of "in good faith" don't seem at all to removing liability protections for hosting things "he doesn't like." Rather, it seems to be saying that shit like social media removing or manipulating mundane content they disagree with en masse, without proper cause or warning, having little to no appeal process, letting blue checkmarks with the Proper Opinions slide, but all the while claiming to be an impartial platform that should receive special liability protection meant to foster free speech, isn't "acting in good faith." Again, unless I'm super exceptional I don't see how that applies to the farms or any other website that hosts controversial content. It's about unfair content curation and removal, not the content itself. You don't censor anything legal, it's pretty clear what few things will get you banned or censored here, and I've never seen you do anything like go mad with power and ban swaths of people you disagree with ala SA/Reddit/Twitter. What am I missing here?
