I don't understand your reasoning. When you say "full responsibility" I assume you mean legal responsibility, as in, a website that removes posts by users should take full legal responsibility if users post illegal content, but I don't see the connection between the two ideas, the illegal content was still posted by a user, what about removing posts makes the website now legally responsible for the actions of users. This would also make the site legally impossible to operate, it sounds like you're suggesting any site that removes user content should be pushed into shutting down. Am I misunderstanding?
If a platform decides to pick and choose then it's no longer a platform. It's a publisher.
It's not the users that post illegal content. Users only send it privately to the publisher and publishers decides to make it publicly available and should bear full legal and moral responsibility for the act of publishing it.
The whole invention of a term platform is so that tech companies can avoid responsibility of publishers.
> it sounds like you're suggesting any site that removes user content should be pushed into shutting down
It can remove user submitted content but only if the laws requires for such content to be removed or if there are technical reasons to do that (content is too large, to popular, too unpopular, some time have passed, etc).
This isn't true though, the distinction you're making doesn't exist, it's still obviously a platform as well as a publisher.
> Users only send it privately to the publisher and publishers decides to make it publicly available
That's not how it works though. Users are free to upload anything they want to the platform and it's published automatically, if it is later determined to be illegal or otherwise in violation of the guidelines, standards or relevance, then it is removed.
> The whole invention of a term platform is so that tech companies can avoid responsibility of publishers.
There is no legal meaning to these words, they are merely a functional description of how these sites work and they are obviously both platforms and publishers.
> It can remove user submitted content but only if the laws requires for such content to be removed or if there are technical reasons to do that (content is too large, to popular, too unpopular, some time have passed, etc)
I understand that this is your stated position of how things ought to work, but I still don't see a reason why it should work this way, sites being able to remove content is useful for moderation and curation which are features that users like and want.
> Why?
Because if it has that right it should have the full responsibility for everything it publishes. With no leeway.
>> Same way that when you open a store you can't pick and choose your customers.
> Of course you can, you just can't refuse service based on legally protected classes, that's the exception not the rule.
Depends on the local law. For example in Poland if you have a store and you put up some good for sale and mark it with a price, you can't refuse it to sell it to anyone that is willing to pay that price. No special classes, just a simple rule. If you are selling, you are selling.
> Platforms should operate their sites however they like within the confines of the law and individual users can decide which sites they prefer to use based on how those sites operate.
Right, and the law should say that they can't have an opinion about the content they publish, and they can't take down or promote stuff based on that opinion.