I agree with the headline, but the hard part is defining what a platform is. I don't think we should just accept anyone who raises their hand and says "hey I'm

I agree with the headline, but the hard part is defining what a platform is. I don't think we should just accept anyone who raises their hand and says "hey I'm a platform, guys!" Maybe one distinguishing feature of a platform vs a publisher is curation. Verizon does not choose which phone calls I get--it routes them all. My DNS provider does not choose which requests to resolve; it resolves them all. Heck, the interstate highway carries any vehicle that meets standard specs for safety. Those are platforms. If Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc simply and directly routed content without curation, they would have a stronger claim on being a platform. Instead, they use filtered timelines and "suggested content" to make decisions about what people see. That's more akin to what the Washington Post does, than Verizon. Social media platforms will claim they use algorithms instead of human judgment to route content, so it's unbiased. Does anybody still buy that?? The many ways in which "smart" algorithms can be biased have been well covered. If nothing else, they are biased in favor of content that generates the fiercest emotions, in the name of "engagement." And why do they do that? I would suggest another distinguishing feature of a platform vs a publisher is the business model. Platforms are fee-for-service. You pay your ISP a fee, and it delivers the service. You pay a gas tax, and the government provides your roads. Publishers have an advertising business model. This creates an incentive for them to manipulate you in ways that increase advertising. Your ISP does not care if you use their service... in fact, they get better profit margins if you don't! But Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube do care, and they take active steps (see: curation) to manipulate you into doing so.