LogFAQs > #968138817

LordoftheMorons posted...

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.

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.

It can be as applied. NYT letters to the editor would be part of its publisher role - since those are curated. The comments section would be a platform.

I'm also fine with giving a safe harbor as long as they are making good faith efforts to have no viewpoint discrimination. Have a meaningful appeal process at the platform level, and make it clear in the TOS that the company is entering into a binding contract with all users to allow all speech that would be protected by 1st Amendment if it was a government entity involved, including a consent to be sued in a court regarding whether a post is protected speech.