Sure, but are they publishers, or hosters? Isn't that the whole CDA Section 230 debate? Either be an impartial host (other than legal requirements) or be a publisher with all the trappings that come with that.
> Isn't that the whole CDA Section 230 debate? Either be an impartial host (other than legal requirements) or be a publisher with all the trappings that come with that.
No. That is not how 230 works at all. 230 does not add any requirements for web hosts. They don't have to conform to some "impartial host" or "publisher" distinction. It just means that websites cannot be sued for illegal content on their platforms, regardless of whether they attempt to remove other similar illegal content.
You (and Ted Cruz) are under the illusion that platforms must be neutral. There is nothing in Section 230 mandating neutrality. Section 230 deals with liability of user content. The First Amendment gives platforms the right to censor.
I think we'll see if anyone is willing to fight the case that removing disinformation campaigns is enough to trip Section 230 immunity.
I can't imagine a judge hearing "we removed a malicious and harmful disinformation campaigns using our platform that were trying to undermine election integrity and trust in government and scientific bodies during a global pandemic" and saying "Yep, obviously that's editorial slant."
If a platform chooses a video to play next, based on "what we know you like, what we think you'll like" then it cannot be a mere hoster. Choosing means making a choice.
Youtube has been called a "radicalisation engine" with some evidence for that (search terms: "youtube radicalization", "Algorithmic Extremism"). This might just be a terrible consequence of "maximising engagement" rather than pushing a fixed political agenda. But evidently, they want to do better.
I would footnote truth to show it means whatever that publisher believes. There are plenty of older published texts that contain incorrect information, and sometimes outright lies (propaganda).
"Anyone can publish anything targeting anyone" happened in the past when the printing press was developed and paper got cheap enough that people could just print up pamphlets or newspapers and give them away on the streets. Around the 1880's. Yellow journalism. All sorts of different points of view getting spread. Communism, anarchism, etc. Then going father back at the very beginning of the printing revolution we had protestantism and religious wars that lasted a century (Hundred Years War, etc.) The internet is this but with even lower hurdles to publication and extremely wide and inexpensive distribution.
The invention of the press certainly made broad publishing much more viable than it was previously, but the capital requirements to distribute a broadsheet to the entire world, even in 1990 were beyond the reach of pretty much everyone except a few very large corporations and governments. Hence the aphorism "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."
The capital requirements today are an internet connection, a phone, and about ten minutes of typing. For the vast majority of people today, the ability to publish to the world is beyond the wildest dreams of William Randolf Hearst.
YouTube was originally about "you" publishing whatever you want to the "tube". Now it's turning into some kind of censored truth filter, which is not very appealing.
Legally, Youtube is not a publisher. If it was it would lose the Section 230 protections, that is the whole point of that law, it is separate who is a publisher (like a news company) and who is just a "dumb wire" (a ISP for example, was the original goal).
Section 230 was created after people sued ISPs using laws intended to allow lawsuits against newspapers.
Section 230 is overall, a good law, but the bigtech abuse of it is greatly risking it to be killed for good, they are supposed to be either a platform, or a publisher, not Frankenstein's Monster that has parts of both, having the protections of a platform while having the powers of a publisher.