There is no platform/publisher distinction in Section 230, and trying to make such a distinction misunderstands the entire reason Congress enacted Section 230 in the first place. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201017/13051145526/section-230-basics-there-is-no-such-thing-as-publisher-or-platform-distinction.shtml Eric.

Big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc, functionally serve as publishers (complete with their own editorial team) when they change, modify, remove, or approve the content which you or I or any user posts.

These companies pose as a free and open platforms, but they do not apply their terms of service consistently and have been censured by the senate a number of times now. They actively discriminate based on content.

Platform models were content- and content-creator-agnostic. They were all about facilitating the production and distribution of content. They were not about the content itself. Every user had the same access and means to create and publish content, while empowering audiences to decide what content was relevant and let the masses decide what would rise to the top.

If they are going to functionally serve content like publishers, they should be treated like publishers, and their section 230 protections revoked.
That’s not to say that section 230 should be repealed, only that publishers posing as open platforms should not enjoy those protections.

They are liable for any non-licensed photo or text content that is published on their site. They would be responsible for anyone that’s been bullied on their network. They are open to lawsuits.

I don’t think they want to be sued. I believe Social Networks need to take a moment and figure out if they really want to be a publisher or remain a platform.