5 ms·

Evergreen: Twitter is a public company. And the grandparent just argued that we should easily be able to regulate companies. You're saying the opposite, now we

Evergreen: Twitter is a public company. And the grandparent just argued that we should easily be able to regulate companies. You're saying the opposite, now we can't regulate because they're quote-unquote "private"? Well, which is it? Can we regulate for-profit companies for the good of the nation or not? If not, why not?

aioprisan 7y ago
We already regulate companies through laws. Pass the appropriate laws! The alternative is that we hope for companies to self-regulate, which may or may not align with what's good for society.
- erichocean 7y ago
  My suggestions for lawmakers is as follows: If you have a user base in excess of 1% of the general population, you are a "Platform" and cannot restrict entrance by individuals or businesses, or full participation thereof, except upon a court order limiting said participation. [Fines t.b.d., but expect them to be punitive in nature.] This law supersedes any Terms of Service a provider might wish to enforce. Want to enforce "whatever you want" on your "platform"? Stay below the 1% threshold and you're good. Otherwise, you need to interact with the public in a completely neutral manner.
airstrike 7y ago
> Twitter is a public company. Correction: Twitter is a corporation with publicly-traded equity. A "public company" isn't the same as a "public good" or controlled by government and regulated as if it were owned by the entire republic
- erichocean 7y ago
  > Correction: Twitter is a corporation with publicly-traded equity. Is this a joke? Literally The New York Times refers to Twitter as a "public company"[0], as does the rest of the known universe. Educate yourself. [0] https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/live-blog-tracking-twitters-i-p-o/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/live-blog-tracking-t... "Twitter began life as a public company on Thursday..."
  - airstrike 7y ago
    No, it's not a joke. Yes, the term "public company" is used widely, but it doesn't mean what you think it means given the rest of your comment. Whether a company is publicly traded or not makes no difference on how much the government can regulate it. Educate yourself.
tasty_freeze 7y ago
> And the grandparent just argued that we should easily be able to regulate companies. That is what you got out of comment? That certainly wasn't my argument, and rereading what I wrote, I still don't see how you get it. Let me be succinct: I wasn't arguing for or against Twitter's actions or making any suggestions for what I would do. I was simply pointing out that making an argument solely on the grounds it is a slippery slope is vacuous.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

aioprisan 7y ago

We already regulate companies through laws. Pass the appropriate laws! The alternative is that we hope for companies to self-regulate, which may or may not align with what's good for society.

erichocean 7y ago
My suggestions for lawmakers is as follows: If you have a user base in excess of 1% of the general population, you are a "Platform" and cannot restrict entrance by individuals or businesses, or full participation thereof, except upon a court order limiting said participation. [Fines t.b.d., but expect them to be punitive in nature.] This law supersedes any Terms of Service a provider might wish to enforce. Want to enforce "whatever you want" on your "platform"? Stay below the 1% threshold and you're good. Otherwise, you need to interact with the public in a completely neutral manner.

airstrike 7y ago

> Twitter is a public company. Correction: Twitter is a corporation with publicly-traded equity. A "public company" isn't the same as a "public good" or controlled by government and regulated as if it were owned by the entire republic

erichocean 7y ago
> Correction: Twitter is a corporation with publicly-traded equity. Is this a joke? Literally The New York Times refers to Twitter as a "public company"[0], as does the rest of the known universe. Educate yourself. [0] https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/live-blog-tracking-twitters-i-p-o/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/live-blog-tracking-t... "Twitter began life as a public company on Thursday..."
- airstrike 7y ago
  No, it's not a joke. Yes, the term "public company" is used widely, but it doesn't mean what you think it means given the rest of your comment. Whether a company is publicly traded or not makes no difference on how much the government can regulate it. Educate yourself.

tasty_freeze 7y ago

> And the grandparent just argued that we should easily be able to regulate companies. That is what you got out of comment? That certainly wasn't my argument, and rereading what I wrote, I still don't see how you get it. Let me be succinct: I wasn't arguing for or against Twitter's actions or making any suggestions for what I would do. I was simply pointing out that making an argument solely on the grounds it is a slippery slope is vacuous.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]