3 ms·
The problem comes when network effects, entry barriers, and oligopolies make private exclusion take the character of a ban from the public square. Starting a ri
by marcoperaza 8y ago
The problem comes when network effects, entry barriers, and oligopolies make private exclusion take the character of a ban from the public square. Starting a rival credit card company, payment processor, and social network is not a viable option for people looking to participate in public discourse.
Plenty of times throughout history, oligopolists and monopolists have been forced to follow common-carriage rules, whether by actual regulation or the threat thereof.
Also, you are conflating the First Amendment, a legal instrument, with the ideas of freedom of speech and open discourse. The First Amendment bars the government from itself censoring people. It does not say that the government cannot require non-discrimination on the part of private companies.
- joshuamorton 8y agoBut now you're changing the argument: that not only must you have free speech, but that others must assist you in getting compensated for your speech and to help you potentially subsist off of it. That's never been part of any conversation about free speech. (Even the broader non 1st amendment version). And it doesn't make sense. You can always take cash or check. The post office doesn't discriminate.
- nicoburns 8y agoSurely there's a good argument for non-discriminatory digital payments too, given how much of an advantage easier payments confers.
- joshuamorton 8y agoBut who ever said anything about an advantage? The argument about free speech is that censorship is bad, so there should be some minimal level of speech that anyone can produce without worry. This comes down to "the government can't regulate me". Some people broaden this to a moral imperative of "we shouldn't needlessly censor", which is a fine moral imperative. However, moral imperatives are not things we should legislate as they aren't universal, and "the government cannot regulate me" is a far cry from what some are calling for now, which is " the government must regulate you".
- TulliusCicero 8y agoI mean, bitcoin is a thing.
- marcoperaza 8y agoThank you for mentioning the post office. The post office is a great example of a service that could just as well be private and should, in that case, still not be allowed to discriminate.
- joshuamorton 8y agoAnd indeed a privatized USPS could potentially be considered a common carrier and regulated as such, although note that currently neither UPS or FedEx is. But that has no bearing on financial services (like square or visa, which are all contract carriers) or hosting companies (also contract carriers), or other things like that. ISPs are the one exception which might fit the bill of a common carrier.
- XorNot 8y agoThe important difference is that an attempt to speak at unwilling subjects via the mail would constitute harassment with common carriers. They're not broadcast mediums since they are point to point.
- joshuamorton 8y agoYep, I'm not actually sure if there are any examples of common carriers that aren't point to point. Radio isn't a common carrier, you have to be federally licensed and its highly regulated (and for example all of these youtube videos that we're talking about would result in the makers being banned and fined).
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoPlease remember the www is international, "the post office" is highly ambiguous. Also, just because something could be private doesn't mean it should be run for privatised gain. I'm pretty sure the UK post office was recently privatised.