My claim was not that publishers didn't exist, but that the commonly presented distinction between platform and publisher - that a "platform" cannot moderate content beyond strict legality, or else they must be be considered a "publisher," lose Section 230 protection and take full legal responsibility for all content on their site - does not exist. Google's editorial policies "turning them from a platform into a publisher" is not a thing that actually happens.
> that a "platform" cannot moderate content beyond strict legality
Nobody in this thread said anything about this being currently illegal. Instead the claim was about a platform acting more like a publisher, in practice.
From a defacto perspective, things that people often call platforms, very much act much different than publishers, in practice.
The person you were responding to is saying that this change, from the previous status quo of platforms acting neutrally, is a problem, but didn't bring up anything to do with the law.
The fact that this stuff is legal, to become less neutral, is in fact precisely the issue!
EX: the following statement "the issue is that the impartial nature of the internet is disappearing"
Is a description of how things work, in practice, that has nothing to do with the law, and instead having to do with how these entities act in practice.
> Google's editorial policies "turning them from a platform into a publisher" is not a thing that actually happens.
Yes it is a thing that is happening. It just has nothing to do with the stuff you brought up. In the past, Google acted differently. It has nothing to do with it being legal to act differently.
The actual, more interesting thing though, is how this will effect Future laws though.
In reality, colloquial called platforms, acting more like colloquial called publishers very much could cause changes in future laws.
>Nobody in this thread said anything about this being currently illegal.
And neither did I. My comment obviously referenced legality in the context of what sort of content "publishers" versus "platforms" are considered able to moderate - strictly legal content versus legal content which offends some otherwise arbitrary guidelines.
This is the second time you've misconstrued my comment, so I'm going to find a better use of my time now. Good day.
You are misconstruing the other person's comment is the point. They were talking about how laws might change, and the consequences of how platforms acting more like what are commonly called publishers might be.
And it is how platforms acting more like publishers, in the colloquial sense, is absolutely a thing, and it has nothing to do with the law.
You called it propaganda, when there is actually a point to be made here.
