The subject is almost necessarily devoid of named sources, because of the fluid and sensitive nature of the topic. Not to write such an article until one could cite an identifiable person could have resulted in the article being quite different in topic and timing.

This article cites three different anonymous sources throughout the piece, and even those sources can't be sure about the supposed executive order being drafted because it isn't done being drafted. I appreciate all of the context within the piece regarding internet free speech laws, but the sourcing of "a White House official and two other people familiar with the matter" makes me read with heightened skepticism. For that reason, I cannot fully trust this piece.

This article provides context for the issue toward the end, discussing how section 230 of the communications decency act limits the ways the government can regulate online media platforms. Having said that, to get to that point you have to read paragraphs of some speculation based on anonymous sources; which leaves a lot to be desired from a consumer standpoint.

While this topic is important overall to investigate, this article is speculation built on more speculation. At this point, it becomes hard to verify anything without more information and concrete detail.