> What's the incentive for a platform to choose to be a provider?
Because it would give them legal protection from being responsible (to a degree) for what their users post.
To be clear: they enjoy these protections today.
If I upload copyrighted material to Reddit, then Reddit themselves cannot be sued for simply hosting it (assuming they take it down when notified).
If I upload a libelous set of statements to Reddit, then you can't sue Reddit themselves for libel.
What I'm saying is that if Reddit wants to heavily moderate and editorialize the content on their website then they should lose those protections.
I'm advocating for making them pick: either you can moderate speech as much as you like but you are responsible for the end product _or_ you can't moderate speech and you're not responsible.
In my view the problem is that today they are allowed to moderate speech as much as they like but have no responsibility for what they say.
This would never fly in a traditional news organization for instance. If NPR has one of their anchors play copyrighted material on air - NPR themselves are responsible. If the Wall St. Journal publishes someone's column that contains truly libelous about someone then Newscorp can get sued.
> ISPs block spam emails all the time. Should they be prevented from doing so?
You'd have to explain the context in which they do it to me more.
I'm not informed enough on that particular topic to have an opinion.