[briandear]

True. However YouTube isn’t a publisher, according to them. They want the Section 203 exemption, but they are acting as a publisher. If they want to be indemnified from libel liability, they can’t pick and choose what to publish as that is a tacit endorsement of what does get published. They can have it both ways.

[triceratops]

> They want the Section 203 exemption, but they are acting as a publisher

You keep saying this over and over but you're wrong.

According to Section 230 they're allowed to "censor" all they want. It doesn't make them a publisher. That's literally the point of Section 230.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

[downandout]

The are allowed to censor in good faith. That generally means that they need to follow their own guidelines, which does not appear to have happened in this case.

[triceratops]

"Good faith" can mean anything at all. And you should be thankful Section 230 exists. If everyone and his dog could sue a company for libelous content posted by a user, you know what would happen? More moderation, real name requirements, and "censorship".