The NO FAKES act has changed, and it's worse

thats also good. online services need to be held responsible for what they host. no where else do they get magic exceptions to well established law.

what other thing is there that is equivalent to online services publishing user-generated content?

A library, record store, or craft markets are the only physical analogues I can think of.

The online publishing of unedited user-generated content to the open internet may not be a business model that works.

Your local telephone pole

>no where else do they get magic exceptions to well established law.

Except for all kinds of established laws broken by the state itself (e.g. extrajudicial deportations), or "fast and loose" startups like Uber and AirBnB, or any big enough company really.

And when they can't fit through exceptions to the law, they magically pay politicians and buy their own laws.

But god forbid people can talk freely about it. What if they don't have the right ideas about things?

the editorial section of the newspaper?

Not everything has to be a business model

There is no direct equivalent. The closest social analog is the coffeeshop/bar, but that doesn't quite fit technically. The closer technical fits don't align socially.

Literally anywhere with a flyer stuck on the wall. Or graffiti. Is the railroad liable for graffiti spray painted on trains? (Actually asking)

In all these cases, the person who adds "content" does so without permission from the owner of the thing to which it is added.

All curated by the newspaper itself. The whole point of Sec 230 is that the host does not need to curate.

The people who installed that pole do not actually want you to post things on it.

Shouldn’t have chosen a material so amenable to staples at eye level then with no removal mechanism save for the work of the elements.