4 ms·

You're proposing a lot of regulation that I'm personally not interested in. And why is it that Twitter has to carry that regulatory burden? At what point does

by fiter 10y ago

You're proposing a lot of regulation that I'm personally not interested in. And why is it that Twitter has to carry that regulatory burden? At what point does a company/website become telecom infrastructure? One of the issues with ISPs and other utilities is that they have been given local monopoly in exchange for regulation, so I would not say they are similar to Twitter. This is also why your statement "you can go to another company, or heck, even start your own, right?" is supposed to cut. You're also not giving very much credit to the audience you speak of. The audience has always had to ensure their own information sources are good.

cookiecaper 10y ago
>You're proposing a lot of regulation that I'm personally not interested in. I'm not really proposing any specific regulation. While it is telecom infrastructure, I'm not suggesting they must be subject to exactly the same regulations as hard-line providers, and there are reasons to craft a different class of rules for them. The point is that just saying "they're a private company, they can alter things and silence customers however they want" shouldn't work anymore. >And why is it that Twitter has to carry that regulatory burden? Because they're a massive communication platform that people depend on to accurately represent conversations. Why should Comcast or AT&T have to carry regulatory burden? Same reasons. >At what point does a company/website become telecom infrastructure? Whenever they act a carrier or intermediary in conversations not intended to go directly to/from them. If you're talking to someone else through something and trusting it to carry your communication, it's a telecommunication device. Of course, there can be limits on when/where any potential restrictions should become effective. >One of the issues with ISPs and other utilities is that they have been given local monopoly in exchange for regulation, so I would not say they are similar to Twitter. This is also why your statement "you can go to another company, or heck, even start your own, right?" is supposed to cut. Whether the monopoly is imposed by fiat or occurs organically, it should still be recognized and addressed as a monopoly. >You're also not giving very much credit to the audience you speak of. The audience has always had to ensure their own information sources are good. Yes, but in the past, it was not really possible to shut everything else out. There was an opportunity for competitors to get their attention in the physical world where everyone in the same vicinity shares equal access. You couldn't get outside information whilst remaining cloistered up inside your house; you at least had to go to the doorstep or mailbox, where people could leave their own publications. In cyberspace, you have a blank window until you explicitly request some content. There is no opportunity to present anything that the user doesn't explicitly pull, and then the user is pulling that data from platforms entirely under the control of a very small handful of corporations. When at least 90% of people are getting their data from the same sources, it's reasonable for some controls to be in place. This isn't new; until the early 00s, we had rules that prevented a single corporation from controlling too many media outlets in a specific market. Until the late 80s, we had the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that controversial public issues were presented fairly. If those controls were needed to help control broadcasters whose range was 50 miles, how is it absurd to suggest similar things apply to Twitter/Facebook whose range is infinite and whose user base reaches into the billions, an appreciable percentage of all humanity?

by fiter 10y ago

cookiecaper 10y ago

>You're proposing a lot of regulation that I'm personally not interested in. I'm not really proposing any specific regulation. While it is telecom infrastructure, I'm not suggesting they must be subject to exactly the same regulations as hard-line providers, and there are reasons to craft a different class of rules for them. The point is that just saying "they're a private company, they can alter things and silence customers however they want" shouldn't work anymore. >And why is it that Twitter has to carry that regulatory burden? Because they're a massive communication platform that people depend on to accurately represent conversations. Why should Comcast or AT&T have to carry regulatory burden? Same reasons. >At what point does a company/website become telecom infrastructure? Whenever they act a carrier or intermediary in conversations not intended to go directly to/from them. If you're talking to someone else through something and trusting it to carry your communication, it's a telecommunication device. Of course, there can be limits on when/where any potential restrictions should become effective. >One of the issues with ISPs and other utilities is that they have been given local monopoly in exchange for regulation, so I would not say they are similar to Twitter. This is also why your statement "you can go to another company, or heck, even start your own, right?" is supposed to cut. Whether the monopoly is imposed by fiat or occurs organically, it should still be recognized and addressed as a monopoly. >You're also not giving very much credit to the audience you speak of. The audience has always had to ensure their own information sources are good. Yes, but in the past, it was not really possible to shut everything else out. There was an opportunity for competitors to get their attention in the physical world where everyone in the same vicinity shares equal access. You couldn't get outside information whilst remaining cloistered up inside your house; you at least had to go to the doorstep or mailbox, where people could leave their own publications. In cyberspace, you have a blank window until you explicitly request some content. There is no opportunity to present anything that the user doesn't explicitly pull, and then the user is pulling that data from platforms entirely under the control of a very small handful of corporations. When at least 90% of people are getting their data from the same sources, it's reasonable for some controls to be in place. This isn't new; until the early 00s, we had rules that prevented a single corporation from controlling too many media outlets in a specific market. Until the late 80s, we had the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that controversial public issues were presented fairly. If those controls were needed to help control broadcasters whose range was 50 miles, how is it absurd to suggest similar things apply to Twitter/Facebook whose range is infinite and whose user base reaches into the billions, an appreciable percentage of all humanity?