> If a platform decides to pick and choose then it's no longer a platform. It's a publisher. This isn't true though, the distinction you're making doesn't exis

> If a platform decides to pick and choose then it's no longer a platform. It's a publisher. This isn't true though, the distinction you're making doesn't exist, it's still obviously a platform as well as a publisher. > Users only send it privately to the publisher and publishers decides to make it publicly available That's not how it works though. Users are free to upload anything they want to the platform and it's published automatically, if it is later determined to be illegal or otherwise in violation of the guidelines, standards or relevance, then it is removed. > The whole invention of a term platform is so that tech companies can avoid responsibility of publishers. There is no legal meaning to these words, they are merely a functional description of how these sites work and they are obviously both platforms and publishers. > It can remove user submitted content but only if the laws requires for such content to be removed or if there are technical reasons to do that (content is too large, to popular, too unpopular, some time have passed, etc) I understand that this is your stated position of how things ought to work, but I still don't see a reason why it should work this way, sites being able to remove content is useful for moderation and curation which are features that users like and want.