| >> At no point does it create a category called "publisher" who is subject to different rules from a category called "platform." Section 230 does not need to create those categories because they already exist under the law. Historically, content providers have been treated as either publishers, distributors, or platforms, and there are different rules for those categories. If a law is saying someone isn't going to be treated as a publisher, it is implicitly saying they are going to be treated as a distributor or a platform. Section 230 says that internet content providers aren't going to be treated as publishers of user content, while the same law also says that internet content providers will have some of the rights of publishers - for example, by moderating content. Under Section 230, internet content providers are treated as distributors in some cases, for example where upon request they need to remove content that violates copyright, but not liable as long as they do so. They are treated as platforms in other cases, for example defamatory content. Although in some ways they have even more rights than offline platform providers - traditionally platform providers have a legal requirement to accept all traffic. So 230 gives internet content providers the privileges, but not the obligations, of traditional publishers, along with the privileges, but not the obligations, of traditional platform providers. The reasons this was done are spelled out in the findings and policies section of the law. Some of the reasons no longer make sense - I don't really think we need government policies at this point to "to promote the continued development of the Internet". And some of the things that the act called out as beneficial about the internet are being harmed by the current actions of internet content providers. We are seeing them act less and less like "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse". That's why people are talking about modifying Section 230. If you get the benefits of a traditional publisher, maybe you should get the obligations as well. If you get the benefits of a traditional platform, maybe you should get the benefits as well. And yes that would be a huge change in the way content is provided on the internet. |