it's the Section 230 platform/publisher conundrum, which itself is kind of just a moral-positioning smokescreen for "we want advertisers to buy ads on our website and advertisers don't want their ads to appear alongside objectionable content".

And I am again forced to ask this silly question, but what are you referencing in regards to Section 230? There is no such delineation that is made as part of Section 230[0] and there is no legal definition for being a platform. Thusly there is no conundrum here.

This is a talking point that got beat dead in 2020 and I am shocked that it still has any life on HackerNews. It's not only moral positioning, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what makes someone a publisher and what is actually covered as part of Section 230.

[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-...

all true, but the conundrum remains, especially as there's been talks to rejigger S230. but again, it's all a smokescreen for creating advertiser-friendly websites.

Hundreds of thousands of people screaming at each other.

It really needs a better model because the idea of scaling up the town square is just a terrible idea.

Robin Dunbar must be laughing now...

How about... a recursive network of medium-sized public squares.