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."