After receiving the text for the ad quoted above, a representative from the advertising team suggested AFSC use the word “war” instead of “genocide” – a word with an entirely different meaning both colloquially and under international law. When AFSC rejected this approach, the New York Times Ad Acceptability Team sent an email that read in part: “Various international bodies, human rights organizations, and governments have differing views on the situation. In line with our commitment to factual accuracy and adherence to legal standards, we must ensure that all advertising content complies with these widely applied definitions.”
It never did. The NY Times is a newspaper, not a social media network.
The comments section though
Okay, yes, Section 230 would apply to the comments section and only the comments section.
(Is that weirdly inconsistent, since exerting editorial control to reject ads isn’t that different from moderators removing objectionable comments? Yes, yes it is. But that’s just because the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is a fucked-up law that shouldn’t exist in the form it does.)