[CA Conservative]

The argument about sites like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. is whether they are platforms or publishers. The distinction makes a huge difference in the legal liability of the company for the content posted on the site. If the site is a platform and exercises no editorial control over what is posted, the site get some degree of legal immunity under federal law. However, if the site exercises editorial control, which they do when they list Prager’s videos as Restricted content, then they become publishers and lose a lot of the immunity they had. So while this may seem like a loss for Prager, in the long run it will be a loss for YouTube and similar sites, as they will be eventually reclassified as publishers, either by the courts or by Congress.

[DiogenesLamp]

However, if the site exercises editorial control, which they do when they list Prager’s videos as Restricted content, then they become publishers and lose a lot of the immunity they had.

Except they don't. They get to play on both sides of the fence with no accountability to anyone.

Google needs to be wiped out. They need to be made non existent.

[semimojo]

...if the site exercises editorial control, which they do when they list Prager’s videos as Restricted content, then they become publishers and lose a lot of the immunity they had...

No, that's how some want it to work but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act explicitly let's these companies moderate/edit content without liability.

[mmichaels1970]

The argument about sites like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. is whether they are platforms or publishers.

This is what I’m trying to understand. Is FR a platform or publisher? A publisher right? Which means there is a certain amount of legal liability for content. Like our posts. Do I have that correct?