> If that’s the case, they’re acting as publishers and should be liable for the content. I'm afraid you're misinformed. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2020

> If that’s the case, they’re acting as publishers and should be liable for the content. I'm afraid you're misinformed. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... > > If you said "Once a company like that starts moderating content, it's no longer a platform, but a publisher" > I regret to inform you that you are wrong. I know that you've likely heard this from someone else -- perhaps even someone respected -- but it's just not true. The law says no such thing. Again, I encourage you to read it. The law does distinguish between "interactive computer services" and "information content providers," but that is not, as some imply, a fancy legalistic ways of saying "platform" or "publisher." There is no "certification" or "decision" that a website needs to make to get 230 protections. It protects all websites and all users of websites when there is content posted on the sites by someone else. > To be a bit more explicit: at no point in any court case regarding Section 230 is there a need to determine whether or not a particular website is a "platform" or a "publisher." What matters is solely the content in question. If that content is created by someone else, the website hosting it cannot be sued over it. Edit: BTW, I'd suggest reading that whole article. Section 230 has been misrepresented by politicians and the media fairly regularly, and this piece does a nice job of laying out the current state of the law and its interpretation and application.