It's noise that will get a lot of politicians and political talking heads spewing their narrative. It'll go nowhere. It's just bluster and rhetoric.

The FCC [or any other agency] doesn't have statutory authority to change or interpret the CDA, and the "good faith" clause has been attacked untold times by plaintiffs (without success). Moreover, Twitter has a 1st Amendment right to express their opinions of others' speech.

I think Twitter is ill-advised to become a self-appointed arbiter of truth, but that's just a bad business decision (in my opinion), not something that Trump or anyone else can do anything about. Many people want platforms to be arbiters of truth, as long as it doesn't result in moderation of their "truth." It's a slippery slope to tread upon and is highly susceptible to personal bias.

The free market should decide if any given platform is doing it or not doing it to their individual satisfaction, not the government, which is precluded from interfering by the 1A.

So, this is just the controversy de jour until attention is directed to another shiny object.

"by allowing regulators to rethink Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act."

It's not within the purview of regulators whether he wants to "allow" it or not. Section 230 is an affirmative defense, a resource available to interactive computer services when someone attempts to hold them liable for third-party content or their editorial decisions to publish or remove. It isn't a tool that can be used for offense; that that's been tried many times before and always gets shown to the door by the courts.

Only Congress can change it, as they (stupidly) did with FOSTA.