This is basically the same situation all 'platforms' and 'social media sites' are stuck in now. On the one hand, they want to be allowed to censor content to please advertisers and make things 'palatable' to the mainstream, yet at the same time they want the legal immunities granted to a common carrier like an electricity company or telephone company.<p>Twitter, YouTube, Reddit, Medium, Instagram and various others are all in the exact same situation. Hopefully at one point they'll be made to take a real stance and either admit they're a publisher or stay neutral on content.
This is an issue as it relates to it's editorial decisions on controversial political issues.<p>Does Facebook allowing white-nationalist content mean it's endorsing it as an editorial decision?<p>If any other publication published content that endorses white nationalism, they'd be shunned by the advertising world. Can't imagine Proctor & Gamble or Chevrolet as willing to place their ads next to white-nationalist content in Facebook.
Dumb question: is this a semantics issue?<p>to the general public “publisher”=“something like the NYT” vs legally where it probably means “making stuff publicly available”?