Regarding section 230 immunity. I think there's distributors and there's publishers, which traditionally were very distinct roles in the physical industry, a b

Regarding section 230 immunity. I think there's distributors and there's publishers, which traditionally were very distinct roles in the physical industry, a book is published by an editorial, who prints it, sells it to a book shop, and performs some content review. As such the publisher bears some responsibility for the context and not the book shop. So ISPs are undeniably distributors and do not bear liabilities for the content they distribute. This has been extended to social media like twitter, granted. The claim being that they are a distributor and that users self publish. Your argument that whenever a platform exercises their right to review and editorialize, they enter a category of publisher and thus become liable as a whole is compelling. You would hold the company in estoppel, either they are a neutral distributor as a whole, or they editorialize as a whole. Now how this relates to the onlyFans case. I'm personally not convinced this is a distributor. I believe they may be a publisher. I feel this is very similar to other companies like neobanks and uber and airbnb, or an employer using a contractor categorization, attempting on paper to be something, but effectively being something else. Legal fictions. The first element common in these legal fictions is that there's a legal relationship that bears a lot of liabilities, be that an employer relationship with taxes, a bank-client relationship with regulations, or a publisher with content liability. That incentive is present here. Second, the undesirable liability role is most likely to be assumed whenever other roles have already been fulfilled genuinely. For example: if Company A contracts worker X from Company B, then the nature of company A with worker X is that of a contractor, so whatever the relationship of worker X is with company B, there is a strong claim that it is an employer, as the contractor role is already served in that chain. Similarly, the role of neutral content distributor is already filled by the ISP and content neutral hosts. Onlyfans specifically hosts sexual content (de facto, they may allege to be a general social media platform but it is not the case in practice). So what I'm saying is that content neutral distributors can be immune from the liabilities of the content they distribute, in the sense that they are ISPs or hosts, but these immunities may not apply to some companies like content-specific last-mile distributors which would assume the role of publisher. I'm not familiar with the specifics of OF, maybe they make their best efforts to avoid being a publisher and have users sign as independent self publishers or whatever. But even if they make all of the right decisions, somebody has to be the publisher, I don't buy this self-publish legal fiction. There's a lot of elements that may constitute the publisher relationship, and charging a fee for transactions per content may be a big one.