5 ms·

The utility company will turn off your services for failure to pay, a violation of their ToS. Twitter/Facebook/Google/whomever will suspend your account for vio

The utility company will turn off your services for failure to pay, a violation of their ToS. Twitter/Facebook/Google/whomever will suspend your account for violating their terms of service. What's the difference?

roenxi 8y ago
A usual TOS relationship with a utility isn't politically charged. The important line that is being crossed here is that you can get banned from Twitter/Facebook/Google/whomever for saying something that is not illegal but is in the opinion of the company objectionable. No utility has the power to disconnect me if I do something they think is objectionable with their service. And that goes to the heart of what people seem to want from "regulating as a utility" (a phrase that is terrifying in its vagueness) - they want freedom to voice unpopular opinions and let those who agree, agree.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  But does that extend to advocating harassment? That's what Jones was accused of doing. Does harassment count as an unpopular opinion?
  - roenxi 8y ago
    I have no idea what Jones was doing, not being an InfoWars viewer or following the story closely. But, I feel under no threat of being disconnected by my water provider because /they think/ that I am harassing someone. For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly. The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace, should not be arbitrating what a publisher does. If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public.
    - s73v3r_ 8y ago
      "I have no idea what Jones was doing" Then it seems very bad faith for you to be using him as an example. "For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly." This is simply not true. Further, if you're Twitter, and you have users that are harassing other users, that makes those users less wanting to use your platform. And you have other people that catch wind that Twitter is doing nothing about harassment, and now very few people want to use Twitter. "The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace" [Citation Needed] "If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public." I disagree. Asking someone to leave who is harassing other users is not causing themselves to be publishers.
  - tomp 8y ago
    Harassment is not illegal. I believe the parent’s point is that a utility seevice can’t disconnect you because of vague allegations of legal behaviour such as “harassment”.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      Harassment is not illegal. That’s simply not true. https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/
      - tomp 8y ago
        Ok, well, Twitter harassment is not illegal. The link you point to only mentions physical harassment (e.g. followig someone, making them reasonably feel unsafe, assaulting them). Harassing speech (and hate speech) is legal (in the US).
        GW150914 8y ago
        Ok, well, Twitter harassment is not illegal. The link you point to only mentions physical harassment (e.g. followig someone, making them reasonably feel unsafe, assaulting them). Harassing speech (and hate speech) is legal (in the US). In fact it specifically mentions anonymous communications in a variety of forms. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication;... I can only recommend a more in-depth reading for you. At the very least you owe it to yourself to have basic knowledge of the laws in question before you go about declaring what’s legal and illegal.
        tomp 8y ago
        Ah, interesting, I didn’t realize there were so many exemptions to free speech. Thanks! So basically all IRS letters are “illegal” :)

roenxi 8y ago

A usual TOS relationship with a utility isn't politically charged. The important line that is being crossed here is that you can get banned from Twitter/Facebook/Google/whomever for saying something that is not illegal but is in the opinion of the company objectionable. No utility has the power to disconnect me if I do something they think is objectionable with their service. And that goes to the heart of what people seem to want from "regulating as a utility" (a phrase that is terrifying in its vagueness) - they want freedom to voice unpopular opinions and let those who agree, agree.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
But does that extend to advocating harassment? That's what Jones was accused of doing. Does harassment count as an unpopular opinion?
- roenxi 8y ago
  I have no idea what Jones was doing, not being an InfoWars viewer or following the story closely. But, I feel under no threat of being disconnected by my water provider because /they think/ that I am harassing someone. For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly. The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace, should not be arbitrating what a publisher does. If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public.
  - s73v3r_ 8y ago
    "I have no idea what Jones was doing" Then it seems very bad faith for you to be using him as an example. "For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly." This is simply not true. Further, if you're Twitter, and you have users that are harassing other users, that makes those users less wanting to use your platform. And you have other people that catch wind that Twitter is doing nothing about harassment, and now very few people want to use Twitter. "The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace" [Citation Needed] "If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public." I disagree. Asking someone to leave who is harassing other users is not causing themselves to be publishers.
- tomp 8y ago
  Harassment is not illegal. I believe the parent’s point is that a utility seevice can’t disconnect you because of vague allegations of legal behaviour such as “harassment”.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Harassment is not illegal. That’s simply not true. https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/ https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/
    - tomp 8y ago
      Ok, well, Twitter harassment is not illegal. The link you point to only mentions physical harassment (e.g. followig someone, making them reasonably feel unsafe, assaulting them). Harassing speech (and hate speech) is legal (in the US).
      - GW150914 8y ago
        Ok, well, Twitter harassment is not illegal. The link you point to only mentions physical harassment (e.g. followig someone, making them reasonably feel unsafe, assaulting them). Harassing speech (and hate speech) is legal (in the US). In fact it specifically mentions anonymous communications in a variety of forms. Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication;... I can only recommend a more in-depth reading for you. At the very least you owe it to yourself to have basic knowledge of the laws in question before you go about declaring what’s legal and illegal.
        tomp 8y ago
        Ah, interesting, I didn’t realize there were so many exemptions to free speech. Thanks! So basically all IRS letters are “illegal” :)