3 ms·

> If you could only access the internet through Facebook, you would have a point. Effectively, many people do. They open their web browsers, and search for "fa

> If you could only access the internet through Facebook, you would have a point. Effectively, many people do. They open their web browsers, and search for "facebook", and click the first link. Don't even get me started about Google! My point is that regulating the network and regulating the endpoints are one and the same. It's bad enough when the endpoints do it under the guise of "fake news", it's worse when the government gets involved under the guise of "free speech". The current political party will not significantly affect the organizations behavior, either. Get back to me when the FCC ceases investigating Obscenity, Indecency & Profanity, or regulating the RF space.

chasing 9y ago
You're conflating a bunch of different things into a kind of opinion mush. A common carrier is a very specific thing legally. Being a common carrier puts you in a very powerful position, so the government applies regulations to common carriers so they aren't put in the position of being "kingmakers" in a wide range of industries by either blocking certain people from using their utilities or extorting them. Facebook is a publisher, essentially. Having the government step in to decide what a company can publish on their own website seems... problematic.
croon 9y ago
> Effectively, many people do. They open their web browsers, and search for "facebook", and click the first link. Don't even get me started about Google! I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the government should draw up regulation to change Googles or Facebooks behavior? What are you even arguing for? 1) No one is forcing people to use Google or Facebook, so people aren't limited by what they decide to promote or not. 2) People are forced to use one ISP (or live with DSL speeds or unreliable wireless) in most areas, both because of local monopolies, and otherwise for upstart costs. These things are not comparable. > The current political party will not significantly affect the organizations behavior, either. They are repealing something they (by your account) themselves instated before. How is that not the work of the political party?

chasing 9y ago

You're conflating a bunch of different things into a kind of opinion mush. A common carrier is a very specific thing legally. Being a common carrier puts you in a very powerful position, so the government applies regulations to common carriers so they aren't put in the position of being "kingmakers" in a wide range of industries by either blocking certain people from using their utilities or extorting them. Facebook is a publisher, essentially. Having the government step in to decide what a company can publish on their own website seems... problematic.

croon 9y ago

> Effectively, many people do. They open their web browsers, and search for "facebook", and click the first link. Don't even get me started about Google! I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that the government should draw up regulation to change Googles or Facebooks behavior? What are you even arguing for? 1) No one is forcing people to use Google or Facebook, so people aren't limited by what they decide to promote or not. 2) People are forced to use one ISP (or live with DSL speeds or unreliable wireless) in most areas, both because of local monopolies, and otherwise for upstart costs. These things are not comparable. > The current political party will not significantly affect the organizations behavior, either. They are repealing something they (by your account) themselves instated before. How is that not the work of the political party?