LogFAQs > #968130885

red_sox_777 posted...

So it's clear the opinion applies only to platforms, not any private entity. If Donald Trump wants to publish his tweets in the NYT, the NYT does not have to publish them. Moreover, the opinion is saying that screening out obscenity and spam is NOT editorial control, so the platforms CAN do that.

There's no distinction in the First Amendment (or Section 230) between "platforms" and "publishers" (and in fact even if there were websites routinely act as both; under your suggestion does the NYT become a "platform" because they have a comments section?). The fact is that this law compels speech; Twitter should not have any obligation to host Trump's tweets where he urges on a mob on a quest to hang Mike Pence.

red_sox_777 posted...

In no circumstance would they be liable if they were purely a platform with no content moderation. The question is whether they can be held liable if they have selective content moderation and don't moderate something that results in harm.

My opinion is that either platforms should either accept being platforms, which means they get the safe harbor but cannot discriminate based on viewpoint, or they exercise their right to use editorial discretion, in which case they must not be allowed the safe harbor of being a platform and should be held accountable for every thing that is posted by anyone. Since they exercised their editorial discretion by choosing not to moderate it.

This is the whole reason Section 230 was put into place. What you've just described is an extremely powerful incentive not to moderate at all (because moderating perfectly at scale is impossible and what constitutes "viewpoint discrimination" is subjective) which would cause websites with user generated content to become complete cesspits.