"In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey on the internet."

"This practice is fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic. When large, powerful social media companies censor opinions with which they disagree, they exercise a dangerous power. They cease functioning as passive bulletin boards, and ought to be viewed and treated as content creators.... Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see. As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet.... Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act... [T]he immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints....  Section 230 was not intended to allow a handful of companies to grow into titans controlling vital avenues for our national discourse under the guise of promoting open forums for debate, and then to provide those behemoths blanket immunity when they use their power to censor content and silence viewpoints that they dislike. When an interactive computer service provider removes or restricts access to content and its actions do not meet the [statutory] criteria... such a provider should properly lose the limited liability shield... and be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider."

From "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship" (at whitehouse.gov).

ADDED: This order isn't just about immunity in defamation lawsuits, it's about fraud. I'll do a new post to highlight the language that I think points at the argument that the companies are committing fraud by holding themselves out as a neutral free speech forum and amassing users who they are in fact treating differently based on viewpoint.