[speeder]

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.

[xxpor]

>Section 230 was created after people sued ISPs using laws intended to allow lawsuits against newspapers.

No, they sued a Prodigy as a forum, not as an ISP. The distinction is critical. ISPs are closer to common carriers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratton_Oakmont,_Inc._v._Prod....