FoxNews.com has comments on their website.

By the logic of the order, Fox News should also lose their immunity and be liable for suit for anything posted by commenters to their online articles.

This actually happened to a news site in Estonia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delfi_AS_v._Estonia

There was a later ruling in Hungary that seemed to go the other way though: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/magyar-...

This. Exactly.

Where have Fox News editorialised users content?

> FoxNews.com and FoxBusiness.com do use moderation in an effort to maintain a safe and respectful environment in our online community. If your comment or username includes vulgar, racist, threatening, or otherwise offensive language, it will be removed.

https://help.foxnews.com/hc/en-us/articles/233194608-Do-you-...

It's disingenuous to compare political speech to, for example, copy/pasting the N word a dozen times. It seems reasonable for a "neutral" platform to allow "moderation" of the latter, but perhaps not the former.

The question was

> Where have Fox News editorialised (sic) users content?

not

> Where have Fox News editorialised (sic) users political speech?

so my reply should in no way construe my opinion of what is or is not political speech.

Now that we've established that Fox News does in fact editorialize user content, we can move on to the original question of whether or not they should now

> be liable for suit for anything posted by commenters to their online articles

> pretending content is not often political speech

The person you are replying to explicitly said that is not the point in the larger issue.

Sorry, you don't just get to decide what is a larger point in some discussion.

The law is capable of distinguishing between ideas, including whether content is good-faith speech or trolling. Pretending the two are the same and that a law could not possibly allow for a platform to moderate the latter without sacrificing its "neutrality" seems unreasonable.

I think it is a valid question that could be scrutinized in court, but there is no need to be obtuse about the fact that these are different categories of speech that the law could treat differently specifically with regard to how it would categorize ("neutrality" of) a platform on the internet, not whether or not the speech is entirely forbidden period.

> You keep going back and forth between 'political speech' being the same or different, but you hallucinated that as having anything to do with the discussion.

I definitely never varied my own view on this. You most likely misinterpreted my first comment and the quote ">", or worse, you're being intentionally dishonest.

In any case, go read the EO. Right now, your opinion amounts to, "Trump bad, therefore removing a comment that spams racial slurs is the same as editorializing a comment that states a political opinion."

The point of the order is to say “publishers” do not have Section 230 immunity and that Twitters actions constitute making it a publisher.

Fox News is already publisher under any reasonable definition.

Under section 230, Fox News is not liable to suit if someone not affiliated with Fox posts illegal content on their comments on their website.

They are liable to suit if Fox News employees post illegal content on their website.

Twitter has the exact same treatment under the law today. It’s not liable for suit when Trump tweets lies about Joe Scarborough. But if @jack or @TwitterSafety tweeted the same lies, it could be sued in court for libel and section 230 would not be a defense.

Fox and twitter are already equal in eyes of the law today.

That's wrong. They have the right to fact check. They simply might not have section 230 immunity with respect to the fact check because that is self-generated content.

They still enjoy immunity with respect to user-posted content, because that is part of the explicit language of the statute and a Presidential Order can't override statutory language.