Easy way to test that: Identify the founders and speak ill of them on the platform. If it is removed, it is not a platform, as it is selecting what may be published.
I can go onto google docs and spread them on a google-search-summarizable website spread through google-owned Youtube that Google is the great satan and their maker is just the worst person since unsliced bread, and it very likely won't be removed. Google, despite my dislike for it, is indeed a platform.
Easy way to test that: Identify the founders and speak ill of them on the platform. If it is removed, it is not a platform, as it is selecting what may be published.
Companies have long been able to be selective about whether they're a publisher or a platform on a moment to moment basis.
So in other words a defamation lawsuit waiting to happen.
i think it'll claim it's a platform. What was it again? section 230?
Easy way to test that: Identify the founders and speak ill of them on the platform. If it is removed, it is not a platform, as it is selecting what may be published.
I can go onto google docs and spread them on a google-search-summarizable website spread through google-owned Youtube that Google is the great satan and their maker is just the worst person since unsliced bread, and it very likely won't be removed. Google, despite my dislike for it, is indeed a platform.
This one? Somehow, I doubt it.
It may not be removed, but its lack of "relevancy" will make it virtually unfindable.
The google algorhithm allows them to manually select content that they deem to be "misinformation.
Companies have long been able to be selective about whether they're a publisher or a platform on a moment to moment basis.