Platforms have the right and responsibility to create positive, safe, pleasing, productive — and, yes, profitable — environments for their users.

Is that true of a particular corner of Hyde Park in London? A platform has no responsibility at all, if it is a platform. (Like Honus Wagner said , "there ain't nuthin' to being a ballplayer, if you’re a ballplayer.) OTOH, a publisher has all sorts of responsibilities. The problem in the US is Section 230, which gives publishers the legal status of platforms. That's an unstable structure doomed to fail.

We need to get rid of that exemption or limit it entirely to unmoderated platforms. (The phone company doesn't listen to my conversations and ban me if it doesn't like what I am saying.) We may discover that the First Amendment "works" only because, when it was written, technical obstacles prevented the evil from finding the stupid so easily. We are going to have to get better at sniffing out snake oil, or the whole thing is going to collapse. Still, I don't see how we can allow "platforms" to moderate their content and not be held responsible for what they don't reject.