The legal limits of Trump's executive order on social media

I've been questioning the legality of such an order from the beginning.

He did not seem to have any problems with social media until they called him on his assertions.

Without knowing the content of President Trump's executive order, it is impossible to discuss or debate its validity or legality. Thus, this article is spitting in the wind. Then we come to the first legal question raised in the article: "It [the XO] could violate the First Amendment." Do companies have First Amendment rights? Secondly, the author of the article argues, "It could effectively circumvent Congress' will". What will? That the Democrats in Congress want social media carriers to be able to stifle free speech of opponents? Thirdly, "It challenges the independence of federal agencies". The article explains that problem by stating that agencies report to Congress and not the President. That doesn't sound very independent, does it. Also, isn't the job of the President to enforce laws passed by Congress. Thus, agencies are his instruments in administering law, or have we redefined the role of the Executive? Well, enough spitting into the wind. I'll wait to see what the XO actually says. What I'm looking for is how President Trump addresses the real issue at hand. Are social media public carriers or are they content publishers. Obviously, Twitter and Facebook (and likely other social media) want to control content without being responsible for it. In other words they want to be carriers when it suits them and publishers when it suits them. Can you blame them? Wouldn't it be wonderful to do whatever you wanted, say whatever you wanted, without ever being responsible for any of it?