Platform vs. Publisher

We faced some heat on Reddit today. A user on r/europeanunion asked a sharp question that cuts to the core of the DSA:

"*"Why should a platform rank anything apart from latest first... If it isn't neutral - then actually it isn't a platform but MEDIA... and they should become PERSONALLY liable."*"

They are absolutely right. And that is exactly what the Digital Services Act (DSA) changes.

#The End of "Neutral Infrastructure"

For decades, platforms hid behind the "Safe Harbor" defense: *"We are just the pipes; we don't control the water."*

The DSA shatters this defense. It recognizes that Recommender Systems (algorithms that sort, rank, and boost content) are NOT neutral. They are opinionated code. They are designed to maximize engagement, often at the cost of truth or safety.

#The "Editor" Function

When an algorithm decides that *User A* should see *Post B* instead of *Post C*, it is performing an editorial function. It is "publishing" a curated view of reality.

The Reddit user argued this makes them "Media." The DSA calls them "Very Large Online Platforms" (VLOPs) and imposes a new deal:

• 1
  You are not liable for every single user post... (That would break the internet).
• 2
  ...BUT you ARE liable for the amplification.

If your algorithm systematically boosts hate speech because it drives clicks, you are liable for the algorithm's design.

#No More "Black Boxes"

This is why Article 27 of the DSA mandates Recommender System Transparency. You specifically must explain *why* users see what they see.

To the Redditor who asked: You can't have it both ways. You are right. Platforms can no longer claim to be neutral conduits while running engagement-farming algorithms. The free pass is over.