Ajit Pai says he’ll help Trump impose crackdown on Twitter and Facebook

> The First Amendment protects every private enterprise's ability to set and enforce rules for acceptable content on their services.

Doesn't this claim imply that the speech on twitter is in fact twitters speech? And that therefore forcing them to allow specific speech allows to forced speech? But in that case, shouldn't they be held liable?

Does this also apply to ISPs?

> Laroia argued that Pai is being hypocritical given his opposition to regulation for telecom providers.

Aren't people who favor regulation for telecom providers but not platforms also hypocritical then?

> In addition to being opposed by the FCC's Democratic minority, Trump's petition did not even have full support from the FCC's Republican majority. Republican FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly stated that the FCC must uphold First Amendment speech protections "that apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making."

> After O'Rielly's comments, Trump took the unusual step of pulling O'Rielly's nomination to another FCC term in an attempt to replace O'Rielly with Nathan Simington, an administration official who reportedly helped draft Trump's executive order on Section 230. Simington's nomination is pending Senate approval.

This is so terrifying, the action, the casualness with which it was undertaken, and the lack of outcry about it because we have become so used to these antics

Does anyone know if this announcement was spurred by the recent Twitter and Facebook restriction of posting links to the Hunter Biden emails story from the NY Post?