Though the law makes no distinction of publisher vs platform, I think people's intuitive sense that something is "wrong" is valid even though they may not be ab

Though the law makes no distinction of publisher vs platform, I think people's intuitive sense that something is "wrong" is valid even though they may not be able to express it clearly. Publisher vs platform is just the easiest/closest way to express it for them. For me, the problematic/key question and example is Facebook's (News) Feed. When content is collected, curated (algorithmically) with specific intent, published/presented in a particular order and layout to communicate and derive revenue, at what point is it a creative work with authorship? If I prompt 100 people to comment on a topic by placing information in front of them, and then take portions of those comments, reorder and present them to you shaped by an overarching narrative of "what you may find interesting related to this topic" and place it on the front page of my website, in what way is this different than a newspaper? A newspaper can be sued for defamation, however, Section 230 (c)(1) shields Facebook from any liability in the case where this selective curation and display of information contains known falsehoods or defamations. If any reasonable curator of facts (reporter) or newspaper editorial board would identify and reject these falsehoods or otherwise be sued, does Facebook get a pass because it was a computer curating? *Edit: The reason I think this may be problematic is that it removes any check on purposeful misinformation that has traditionally existed on our previous methods of speech amplification (newspapers, tv, radio). Facebook has no incentive not to publish the most engaging information even if it is false, as it cannot be sued. If it could be, you would see it actively prevent misinformation. The standard would be what the courts would find it responsible for under existing libel laws, which is a difficult bar to clear, particularly for public persons, but is the only restraint on yellow journalism we've traditionally had.