But doesn't that effectively deprive the commenter of their legal rights? Instead of suing the commenter for defamation and them then having the opportunity to defend themselves in court, you can just threaten to sue Y Combinator who will then remove the comment without any due process. Unlike the person who posted the comment, Y Combinator has no particular reason to care whether a particular comment stays up; certainly not enough to go to court over it at any rate.
How can a random commenter on HN have legal rights over Y Combinator? Clearly this site is a private organization and not run via the authority of the government.
That's precisely my point. By making Y Combinator the target of the lawsuits, you would deprive the actual accused person of the ability to defend themselves when Y Combinator inevitably capitulates. I can mount a legal defense against a defamation lawsuit; I can't mount a legal defense against Y Combinator deleting my comments because they don't feel like going to court on my behalf.
Let's say I post a comment on Hacker News critical of some big megacorp. Megacorp threatens to sue YCombinator if they don't take down my comments. Hacker News deletes my comment because they don't want to get into a legal fight with Megacorp over a random comment. I can't sue Hacker News because they have a right to delete my comments for any reason, and I can't sue Megacorp because they didn't delete my comment, they just asked Hacker News to delete it. I'm SOL.
Contrast that to the following: I post a comment on Hacker News critical of some big megacorp. Megacorp can't credibly threaten to sue YCombinator over that because they are legally protected from being sued over the actions of their users. Megacorp sues me instead. I now have the ability to defend myself in court against Megacorp should I choose to.
If we were to apply US law, specifically the infamous "Section 230", then that would depend on whether Y Combinator actively engages in moderation (aka editorializing) of comments.
If Y Combinator only engages in moderation of comments merely to satisfy other legal requirements (eg: remove illegal materials), then Y Combinator is a platform and cannot be held liable for comments.
If Y Combinator engages in moderation of comments beyond any requirements mandated by law (eg: remove some comments because the moderators don't like them), then Y Combinator is a publisher editorializing its content and can be held liable for comments.
A simplification is if Y Combinator has anything to do with a comment other than blindly disseminating it, then Y Combinator can be held liable for the comment. If not, whoever wrote the comment is liable.
And yes, if you think social media is getting away with moderating and editorializing its contents (eg: "this is disinformation" notices) while evading any and all liability under the guise of being a platform, you are absolutely right.
> If Y Combinator engages in moderation of comments beyond any requirements mandated by law (eg: remove some comments because the moderators don't like them), then Y Combinator is a publisher editorializing its content and can be held liable for comments.
Just because many people wish Section 230 says that, it doesn't. The the contrary it gives fairly broad protection to moderation efforts and does not say that moderation amounts to becoming a publisher. (hence various people calling for changes to this, restricting platforms ability to moderate)
