>If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher"
I regret to inform you that you are wrong.
That’s not the argument. Not really. The argument is that these companies are removing entirely legal content they just don’t like. Their TOS pages are interpretive depending how much they dislike the poster of the content. They do this intentionally and target specific views. They curate their bubble and that is publishing. The issue isn’t moderating content, it’s the selective enforcement.
He starts with a complete strawman.
>It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.
That is the exact crux. I created the content, but EVERY one of these sites is clear they own it. Once I wrote it and hit send, I gave it to them and assumed ownership, they are clear about this. So they ARE publishing THEIR content.
> That is the exact crux. I created the content, but EVERY one of these sites is clear they own it. Once I wrote it and hit send, I gave it to them and assumed ownership, they are clear about this. So they ARE publishing THEIR content.
This isn't the distinction the law makes though. The distinction is about the provider, not the owner. If I write a book, and you post an excerpt from that book on my website, I'm not liable under 230, even though I'm the original author of the content! The distinction the law makes is between a first party provider and a third party provider.
That is, imagine I got a license to an image in my book, but not for distribution on the internet. You then post the page from the book as a comment on my website. I didn't violate my license, even though the book posted on my site was mine.
On the contrary, they tend to be clear you’re assigning them right to publish worldwide in any medium in perpetuity including make money off that, not ownership.
For instance, you don’t have to get seek their permission to also publish your thoughts somewhere else, or use your own photo commercially, etc.
This part...
>If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" I regret to inform you that you are wrong.
That’s not the argument. Not really. The argument is that these companies are removing entirely legal content they just don’t like. Their TOS pages are interpretive depending how much they dislike the poster of the content. They do this intentionally and target specific views. They curate their bubble and that is publishing. The issue isn’t moderating content, it’s the selective enforcement.
He starts with a complete strawman.
>It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else.
That is the exact crux. I created the content, but EVERY one of these sites is clear they own it. Once I wrote it and hit send, I gave it to them and assumed ownership, they are clear about this. So they ARE publishing THEIR content.