> This new line of argument is akin to saying that HN should be directly responsible for all users' comments because dang downvoted a post. It's nothing more th

> This new line of argument is akin to saying that HN should be directly responsible for all users' comments because dang downvoted a post. It's nothing more than a hamfisted outburst by Trump trying to remove the protection from a company as some sort of summary punishment because the executive doesn't like what the company itself has said. How is wanting twitter -- who is now scrutinizing and editing their user's posts -- to now be held up to the standards of a publisher (which is literally someone who publishes information written by others after having reviewed it) a 'new line of argument'? If HN were to actually start to modify user's posts, not because of voting but because of internal processes, then yes, HN should probably be held to the standard of a publisher. You can't just decide that regulations don't apply to you because you have more writers than the standard publisher.