Sure, but are they publishers, or hosters? Isn't that the whole CDA Section 230 debate? Either be an impartial host (other than legal requirements) or be a publisher with all the trappings that come with that.
> Isn't that the whole CDA Section 230 debate? Either be an impartial host (other than legal requirements) or be a publisher with all the trappings that come with that.
No. That is not how 230 works at all. 230 does not add any requirements for web hosts. They don't have to conform to some "impartial host" or "publisher" distinction. It just means that websites cannot be sued for illegal content on their platforms, regardless of whether they attempt to remove other similar illegal content.
You (and Ted Cruz) are under the illusion that platforms must be neutral. There is nothing in Section 230 mandating neutrality. Section 230 deals with liability of user content. The First Amendment gives platforms the right to censor.
I think we'll see if anyone is willing to fight the case that removing disinformation campaigns is enough to trip Section 230 immunity.
I can't imagine a judge hearing "we removed a malicious and harmful disinformation campaigns using our platform that were trying to undermine election integrity and trust in government and scientific bodies during a global pandemic" and saying "Yep, obviously that's editorial slant."
If a platform chooses a video to play next, based on "what we know you like, what we think you'll like" then it cannot be a mere hoster. Choosing means making a choice.
Youtube has been called a "radicalisation engine" with some evidence for that (search terms: "youtube radicalization", "Algorithmic Extremism"). This might just be a terrible consequence of "maximising engagement" rather than pushing a fixed political agenda. But evidently, they want to do better.
