[throwaway_tech]

That is a clever legal argument. Of course to distinguish a traditional newspaper or publication from social media posts are the editorializing exercised by the tech companies occurs after publication/posting; whereas, traditional media exercises their editorial powers prior to publication.

In practice, say I set up an anonymous social media account and publish false/defamatory statements about myself, then I sue the tech company and john doe (as the poster), what exactly can/could the tech company do to have prevented liability? Seemly they would have to somehow change their systems so posts are reviewed by editors prior to publication to minimize legal risk and potential liability.

[protomyth]

That is the type of situation that 230 was meant to stop. It would be impossible to be Twitter, etc. without the protection of 230 and that is why it was created. It carries over from not being able to sue the telephone or telegraph company because someone sent something defamatory about you over their system.

The argument is that the services desire to keep the protections of 230 but act like publishers that are not afforded the same protections.

[visarga]

> It carries over from not being able to sue the telephone or telegraph company

On the other hand, phone calls are not persistent and one to one, not one to anyone.

[crooked-v]

> not one to anyone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_line_(telephony)

[clmckinley]

And you generally know the person who is on both ends. This leads to a sense of history and consequence which is most commonly not available on the internet.

[BadThink6655321]

Not anymore. My wife and I now get more spam calls than real calls.

[Nasrudith]

It isn't a legal arguement but a propaganda push. There is no publisher/platform duality. The concept is pure unadultered bullshit. There is no legal precedent for that concept but a later invention. This is not pointed out nearly enough.