> When someone reads a Facebook post, does anyone think that Facebook is the speaker? That legal fiction is attractive for various reasons, but I don’t think it’s such a slam dunk. I think there is a fair argument that Facebook is a pipe for someone else’s speech.
I do, in a sense. By the nature of its design, Facebook has a feed of virtually every opinion in the world and can show any of them to any user. Facebook could express any opinion it wants by choosing what content gets shown.
As a sort of analogy, let's say I want to say "I like dogs." If I read from a random character generator until it says "I like dogs" and then I send that to the internet, have I published it or am I merely a pipe for the random number generator?
Technically the random character generator "created" the content, but it would be a totally different work without my involvement.
It's not really relevant, though, because Section 230 applies regardless of whether FB is a publisher or not.