and Metropolitan International Schools Ltd (trading as SkillsTrain and/or Train2Game) v Designtechnica Corp (trading as Digital Trends) (Metropolitan International Schools). [143] In Oriental Press Group Limited v Fevaworks Solutions Ltd, (Oriental) Ribeiro PJ explained the reasons for treating providers, administrators and managers of what was effectively an internet forum (I will refer to them as forum hosts) as publishers and distinguishing them from the proprietors of the golf club in Byrne as follows: [50] Once the nature of the Byrne v Deane principles is grasped, it becomes clear that they do not apply to internet platform providers like the respondents. The provider of a discussion forum is in a wholly different position from that of the occupier of premises who is not in the business of publishing or facilitating publication at all, but who has had imposed on him the defamatory act of a trespasser. [51] The respondents plainly played an active role in encouraging and facilitating the multitude of internet postings by members of their forum. As described in Section B of this judgment, they designed the forum with its various channels catering for their users’ different interests; they laid down conditions for becoming a member and being permitted to make postings; they provided users browsing their website access to the discussion threads developed on their forum; they employed administrators whose job was to monitor discussions and to delete postings which broke the rules; and they derived income from advertisements placed on their website, a business model which obviously benefits from attracting as many users as possible to the forum. [52] The respondents were therefore, in my view, plainly participants in the publication of postings by the forum’s users and in that sense they were publishers from the outset, it being in issue whether they were first or main publishers or merely subordinate publishers… [53] In this context, I respectfully part company with the reasoning (adopted on an interlocutory basis) of the English Court of Appeal in Tamiz v Google Inc. It is reasoning which proceeds on the basis that successful invocation of the defence of innocent dissemination results in the defendant being deemed not to have published at all. For the reasons previously given, I do not accept that premise. Nor am I able to accept the distinction drawn between the notice board and graffiti analogies, nor the suggestion that ‘the provision of a platform for blogs is equivalent to the provision of a notice board’. As indicated above, my view is that the provider of an internet discussion platform similar to that provided by the respondents falls from the outset within the broad traditional concept of ‘a publisher’, a characteristic not shared by a golf club or other occupier who puts up a notice board on which a trespassing message is posted. … [146] A forum host is the principal of an enterprise, whether large or small, which encourages and elicits contributions from others whether for commercial, personal or ideological reasons. On the criteria identified by Ribeiro PJ, which broadly approximate the criteria identified at [141] above, if there were a capacity to block postings until they were vetted, there would be a strong case for holding that forum hosts are primary publishers. However, it