> These tech companies are currently enjoying the benefits of being a "platform" while acting as publishers. If this is referring to Section 230, I think it's

> These tech companies are currently enjoying the benefits of being a "platform" while acting as publishers. If this is referring to Section 230, I think it's a misinterpration. Section 230 gives platforms the ability to moderate without being (legally) treated as a publisher, but it doesn't make them into a utility. If it's referring to a different law, I'm curious which one. In your view, if YouTube is not a publisher, should they be required to host pornography? Are the community features part of the platform, or is YouTube entitled to host content but make it undiscoverable?