I mean, that "distinction" doesn't exist under current law - you can be both, or neither. Facebook is both. Even if you amended the law to create such a distinction though, attempting to place companies under it based on whether or not they moderated based on viewpoint would be a content based restriction on speech, and violate the constitution. The government isn't allowed to punish people (including groups of people such as companies), or remove privileges, based on the content of speech, with very narrow exceptions.
I'd agree with you, but we hold publishers liable to whatever they publish.
My understanding is as follows. As a platform, the rationale for section 230 protections is that you are not the one making the comments, and are thus just a platform for the speech of others. The speaker, and not the platform, is thus the one liable for the speech. Conversely, a publisher, while not the one writing (contributors write, and the publisher publishes), still bears the brunt of the liability.
I thus think it is intuitive (to me at least), that after a degree of control is exercised, this flips into being more like a publisher than a platform, and should be treated as such. The question then becomes where to draw that line.
the only thing 230 does is make it so “platforms” CAN moderate speech and exercise control, without having to take on the legal liability like a newspaper publisher.
Before 230, there was already effectively a distinction in that, if you ran a forum and did absolutely no moderation, you were never liable for the content - but then you also couldn’t remove any content that was vulgar, racist, hateful to other users, etc. which is why section 230 is part of the “Communications Decency Act”. Without it, social media just choose between not moderating anything, and vetting every post (and probably only allowing posts from a small group of verified people and businesses).
Are "moderate" and "editorialize" treated equally in 230? I take moderate to mean, delete entirely, silence, ban. I have always assumed maybe incorrectly? that editorializing something such as adding or removing content or context is publishing content?
My understanding is that you could draw a legal distinction under current law with those words, but only if this part falls under the word moderation not the word editorializing:
> that editorializing something such as [...] removing content or context
I suppose it would be permissible to draw a line where you could delete all or none of a users content, but not some, since that does sound content neutral. I don't believe anyone has drawn such a line though in law (and it would be quite the strange line to draw).
