4 ms·

> In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh and held that the mall had not been sufficien

> In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, the Supreme Court distinguished a private shopping mall from the company town in Marsh and held that the mall had not been sufficiently dedicated to public use for First Amendment free speech rights to apply within it. So if a site has a monopoly on video commentary, that would seem to be "sufficiently dedicated to public use" to me.

tedivm 8y ago
These are separate issues though- having a monopoly doesn't automatically make you a "public use" company. The fact is that Facebook already has rules that restrict it far more than "public use" would. Facebook blocks people for bullying, nudity, discussions about drugs and violence, age, and probably many other types of things. You can't even access many of the site unless you register. It's very much different from a town that allows everyone access to its streets (which is the original case we're all talking about here).
- stcredzero 8y ago
  having a monopoly doesn't automatically make you a "public use" company. Having a monopoly on a form of speech does.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    Facebook does not have a monopoly on internet speech. Facebook does not even have a monopoly on internet speech for its users; people who have Facebook accounts can also have Twitters or Tumblrs or blogs or what have you.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Facebook does not have a monopoly on internet speech. Being able to dole out the potent combination of virality/discovery+monetization to only one particular ideological group basically is a monopoly on Internet speech in 2019. Facebook doesn't control all of it, but a rather small group of people in the circles adjacent to SV CEOs basically does control all of it for the entire English speaking world. That is way too much unaccountable power in too few hands, particularly because it effectively drowns out the 1990's and prior conception of Freedom of Speech.
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        Social networks don't exist in a vacuum. You can leave if you don't like what's happening. Myspace collapsed after user dissatisfaction. So did Digg. If someone in Wichita is unhappy with the current situation they can always do something on their own. Which is why Voat or Stormfront exist.
        stcredzero 8y ago
        If someone in Wichita is unhappy with the current situation they can always do something on their own. Which is why Voat or Stormfront Do you realize how arrogant and dismissive this can sound to people who happen to live in Wichita? What is happening in 2019, is there is an active program to label all dissent even quite reasonable dissent like that of Steven Pinker, as something unsavory. Basically, what we are seeing in 2019, is that everyone who isn't a diehard adherent of the party line is to be relegated to Voat or Stormfront. Korean American journalist from the wrong side of the tracks in Chicago? Call him "Alt Right" and get Antifa goons to go and beat him up. (Literally happened. You can find the videos online.) Left leaning Professors who are widely respected and cited in their fields are called "Alt Right" and "White Supremacists." Professors no longer feel free to say exactly what they think! There is no due process for people falsely accused this way. It's a form of power which can instantly exile people to a de-powered, effectively pre-Internet society. It's stacking the deck for a particular group of people (who happen to have been demonstrably wildly enmeshed in groupthink, and dramatically wrong about matters of public import -- again and again) to the tune of orders of magnitude greater effectiveness at media. What if a cabal of corporate oligarchs decided only the people they liked got to have virality and discoverability over the Internet. That would be a competitive skewing of the odds far worse than a 1990's style monopoly. But instead of startups and business, instead apply that to the most potent forms of discourse and Free Speech. That's a recipe for mass groupthink and oppression through the control of speech and thought. It's one which is being enacted right now.

tedivm 8y ago

These are separate issues though- having a monopoly doesn't automatically make you a "public use" company. The fact is that Facebook already has rules that restrict it far more than "public use" would. Facebook blocks people for bullying, nudity, discussions about drugs and violence, age, and probably many other types of things. You can't even access many of the site unless you register. It's very much different from a town that allows everyone access to its streets (which is the original case we're all talking about here).

stcredzero 8y ago
having a monopoly doesn't automatically make you a "public use" company. Having a monopoly on a form of speech does.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Facebook does not have a monopoly on internet speech. Facebook does not even have a monopoly on internet speech for its users; people who have Facebook accounts can also have Twitters or Tumblrs or blogs or what have you.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Facebook does not have a monopoly on internet speech. Being able to dole out the potent combination of virality/discovery+monetization to only one particular ideological group basically is a monopoly on Internet speech in 2019. Facebook doesn't control all of it, but a rather small group of people in the circles adjacent to SV CEOs basically does control all of it for the entire English speaking world. That is way too much unaccountable power in too few hands, particularly because it effectively drowns out the 1990's and prior conception of Freedom of Speech.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      Social networks don't exist in a vacuum. You can leave if you don't like what's happening. Myspace collapsed after user dissatisfaction. So did Digg. If someone in Wichita is unhappy with the current situation they can always do something on their own. Which is why Voat or Stormfront exist.
      - stcredzero 8y ago
        If someone in Wichita is unhappy with the current situation they can always do something on their own. Which is why Voat or Stormfront Do you realize how arrogant and dismissive this can sound to people who happen to live in Wichita? What is happening in 2019, is there is an active program to label all dissent even quite reasonable dissent like that of Steven Pinker, as something unsavory. Basically, what we are seeing in 2019, is that everyone who isn't a diehard adherent of the party line is to be relegated to Voat or Stormfront. Korean American journalist from the wrong side of the tracks in Chicago? Call him "Alt Right" and get Antifa goons to go and beat him up. (Literally happened. You can find the videos online.) Left leaning Professors who are widely respected and cited in their fields are called "Alt Right" and "White Supremacists." Professors no longer feel free to say exactly what they think! There is no due process for people falsely accused this way. It's a form of power which can instantly exile people to a de-powered, effectively pre-Internet society. It's stacking the deck for a particular group of people (who happen to have been demonstrably wildly enmeshed in groupthink, and dramatically wrong about matters of public import -- again and again) to the tune of orders of magnitude greater effectiveness at media. What if a cabal of corporate oligarchs decided only the people they liked got to have virality and discoverability over the Internet. That would be a competitive skewing of the odds far worse than a 1990's style monopoly. But instead of startups and business, instead apply that to the most potent forms of discourse and Free Speech. That's a recipe for mass groupthink and oppression through the control of speech and thought. It's one which is being enacted right now.