That's kind of the point of section 230 - it protects large public forums from being sued or arrested from something a user posted. It means they are not publishers. If they however edit or censor posts they are publishers and should not be protected by 230. A book (the example I used was if the other published a book, not me) is by definition published, so I'm not sure what you are actually getting at.
I get what you are saying technically. Its like they be protection but still edit or censor ie by tags of misinformation. You say if but they are/were.
they are benefiting from protections. your book is not.
That's kind of the point of section 230 - it protects large public forums from being sued or arrested from something a user posted. It means they are not publishers. If they however edit or censor posts they are publishers and should not be protected by 230. A book (the example I used was if the other published a book, not me) is by definition published, so I'm not sure what you are actually getting at.
I get what you are saying technically. Its like they be protection but still edit or censor ie by tags of misinformation. You say if but they are/were.