Thanks for this. I may have worded the above badly. I never meant to imply that it was the case that a business is labelled as either a publisher or a platform under Section 230, but rather this would be an instance where they lose such protections on this particular piece of content as a consequence of this one decision.

Here is what others on the fediverse have pointed out in regards to editorial control and Section 230:

https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/66676/The-entire-r-MildlyInteresting-mod-has-just-been-REINSTATED-again-without#entry-comment-293617

https://kbin.social/m/RedditMigration/t/72348/Reddit-Admins-Deny-Subreddit-Users-the-Right-to-Vote-for#entry-comment-333575

https://kbin.social/m/fediverse/p/526492/A-few-days-ago-I-suggested-that-once-Meta-s-Threads#post-comment-932539

I don’t think any of us are using the "If you said “Once a company like that starts moderating content, it’s no longer a platform, but a publisher” argument.

Rather, we’re using the "If you said “Section 230 requires all moderation to be in “good faith” and this moderation is “biased” so you don’t get 230 protections” one.

So, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the misunderstanding on the original story was actually the true story. (I.e. admins deleted the content, not mods for the John Oliver rule).

Still IANAL but my layperson’s understanding is would be that (even though no court has gone this way yet) Section ©(1) isn’t as relevant because no one is disputing that reddit is not source of the picture. Obviously it was the OP who was the source - in fact OP could be the party on the other side of this hypothetical court action. But since there’s no dispute to settle through Section ©(1) then we must move on.

Section ©(2)(B) should not apply because reddit removed the picture. It’s not a case of reddit enabling or making that picture available, but the opposite. And providing the technical means for other to remove it (although this actually applies to this example in the real world because they gave the mod the tools to do that and the mod was the one who actually did it) in hypothetical example, reddit did it themselves - through an admin, who is an employee of reddit, who’s actions represent reddit’s own actions here.

So we do seem to have crafted a case where the focus should be on Section ©(2)(A).

It’s interesting though that according to the techdirt article that something like the above has never been tested in court. And the bit about a judge trying to figure out “good faith” and the massive 1st amendment issues therein makes sense. I think the techdirt article goes too far in stating that arguing for a moderation against good faith wouldn’t help - it’s never made it to a court after all so we don’t have any examples on how a court would rule when asked to decide on that point.

But considering how reddit has traditionally operated - unless there was a legal requirement like DMCA compliance or IP violation, they left all moderating decisions to the volunteer mods - to make a special exception in this case to their usual hands-off policy - and specifically to make a decision that even the mods disagreed with - likely would give reddit quite the headache in trying to argue that they acted in good faith.

But again IANAL.