> I disagree with this characterization: “social media operators are arguably less involved in the curation of their websites’ content than these traditional examples.” A publisher who engages in light curation is making just as much of an editorial choice as those who engage in heavier curation. There’s not a “better” or “worse” level of curation; there are just different choices along a continuum.
There is a qualitative difference in the scope of curation between the court’s example (a newspaper of solely Letters to the Editor) and a social media website. I don’t think a single social media website has an editorial board that goes around explicitly approving content prior to dissemination. Lobsters, perhaps?
> I disagree with this characterization: “social media operators are arguably less involved in the curation of their websites’ content than these traditional examples.” A publisher who engages in light curation is making just as much of an editorial choice as those who engage in heavier curation. There’s not a “better” or “worse” level of curation; there are just different choices along a continuum.
There is a qualitative difference in the scope of curation between the court’s example (a newspaper of solely Letters to the Editor) and a social media website. I don’t think a single social media website has an editorial board that goes around explicitly approving content prior to dissemination. Lobsters, perhaps?
The full title is:
> Court Permanently Enjoins Ohio's Segregate-and-Suppress/Parental Consent Law–NetChoice v. Yost