I disagree. I don't see why any platform should be liable for their user's postings. Those posts belong to the user. The law that is paired with 230 (not sure if this law is part of that descriptor) enables copyright strikes. This system is widely believed to suck, so by all means replace it. But I think that protection for websites like this one is good.

Almost everyone moderates, so almost no one can be other than a publisher according to your definition. And that's fine. I don't see the need for distinction between platform and publisher. Just make the person responsible for content the person that generated it, and then if you need some parallel copyright enforcement mechanism, figure out one.

The obvious issue with holding users responsible is what to do with anons. I think not much. They are still responsible for their posts, but we must acknowledge that a large number of untraceable posts will be made. Some mechanism must be made such that even though anon cannot be held responsible, his lawbreaking posts must still be taken down. And you do this without punishing platforms who comply.

I disagree. I don't see why any platform should be liable for their user's postings. Those posts belong to the user. The law that is paired with 230 (not sure if this law is part of that descriptor) enables copyright strikes. This system is widely believed to suck, so by all means replace it. But I think that protection for websites like this one is good.

Almost everyone moderates, so almost no one can be other than a publisher according to your definition. And that's fine. I don't see the need for distinction between platform and publisher. Just make the person responsible for content the person that generated it, and then if you need some parallel copyright enforcement mechanism, figure out one.