First you argue about the model, now the platform. Two different things.

If a platform encourages and doesn’t moderate at all, yes we should go after the platform.

Imagine a newspaper publishing content like that, and saying they are not responsible for their journalists

> X is dumb pipe.

X also actively distributes and profits off of CSAM. Why shouldn't the law apply to distribution centers?

There's a slippery slope version of your argument where your ISP is responsible for censoring content that your government does not like.

I mean, I thought that was basically already the law in the UK.

I can see practical differences between X/twitter doing moderation and the full ISP censorship, but I cannot see any differences in principle...

We don't consider warehouses & stores to be a "slippery slope" away from toll roads, so no I really don't see any good faith slippery slope argument that connects enforcing the law against X to be the same as government censorship of ISPs.

I mean even just calling it censorship is already trying to shove a particular bias into the picture. Is it government censorship that you aren't allowed to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater? Yes. Is that also a useful feature of a functional society? Also yes. Was that a "slippery slope"? Nope. Turns out people can handle that nuance just fine.

X is most definitely not a dumb pipe, you also have humans beside the sender and receiver choosing what content (whether directly or indirectly) is promoted for wide dissemination, relatively suppressed, or outright blocked.

If you have a recommandation algorithm you are not a dumb pipe