Platform Content Liability

I think what you're miss is the safe harbor parts of the DMCA in the USA. They offer protection for any user generated content on the web provided the operators respond to DMCA requests within a certain time (24h?). Without these safe harbor provisions the idea is that the web would crumble under the weight of liability. Think about shared hosting companies, AWS, a public forum like this and then consider how much effort it would take to police the amount of content being created by users.

Sounds like a weird requirement. If they host the content, they should be sued, minus 230 protections

Platforms are not publishers. The publisher of these things should face legal action (including the removal of their content). It's not for the platform to pick and choose.

Boom you're a social media company. And you'll be naturally liable for hosting contents. Isn't that how Winny worked?

The platform shouldn't be held responsible for their content, similar to social media right?

Have it removed so no other company can get to their scale? We have to always have a way to defer liability to the user who posted the content.If a website is always responsible for whatever the users post you won't have much of a free internet anymore. However I think the issue with FB and Twitter is that they haven't had any repercussions for breaking the law in the first place.

This is wrong. The law very explicitly states that companies are not liable for content uploaded by users and are also legally able to moderate their platform as they see fit. Google section 230.

Yeah, but I think this is case where it is at best illegal because of belief that they cannot adequately police their content... that seems like the kind of thing you could give them a lot more lead time on and give them some practical transition options (like, your content isn't deleted, but we're not going to route any traffic to public IPs). I mean, it's a belief, not even something that they have really evaluated and dealt with legal consequences. You might think they are enti

Yes, i'm saying that this law/rule (or whatever it's called, I'm not from USA) should be changed.You should be able to choose a status, either "platform" or "published", and in the case of the first, you'd have to leave everything not directly illegal (with rules in place, how to contest the legality in court if the post was removed and the author think it's legal speech - sort of like with DMCA claims), or you're a publisher, where you c

You're talking about services that are "common carriers".They have special legal obligations to, within reason, facilitate every legal transaction that comes their way. The scenarios you describe therefore cannot happen with them.If you want internet platforms to have that same level of "anything goes", then you're arguing for them to be classified as common carriers.