6 ms·

The difference between the telephone company and Twitter is that the phone company was (historically) a monopoly - the only game in town. Use their wires or get

by riffic 6y ago

The difference between the telephone company and Twitter is that the phone company was (historically) a monopoly - the only game in town. Use their wires or get lost. It required common carrier neutrality by regulation. Twitter (and every single commercial social media space) is not the above, and can do what it wants on its service. It's not a public utility.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
This seems like an incomplete summary. Shipping companies are subject to similar common carrier regulations, even though they're not monopolies, because "just hire some random guy to drive your packages around" isn't a feasible replacement. In a country where almost everyone with any serious media presence is on Twitter, it's unreasonable to tell certain arbitrary subsets of the media that their thoughts are off limits.
_qulr 6y ago
It's not just Twitter, it's also Facebook. (I believe Facebook was actually the first to take action.) What if Google does it too? In the past few years, we've seen these big tech companies operate in a manner that seems collusive. They follow each other's cues. One company is the first to censor, and then the other companies follow very quickly with the exact same censorship. (The quick collective action tends to dilute the criticism against any single one of those companies.) It's not just one company doing what it wants, it's all the major players doing the same form of censorship.
- riffic 6y ago
  I don't really care about Twitter or Facebook to be honest. It's not the only game in town. I'd be more concerned if I bought server hosting from AWS, stood up a WordPress blog about my thoughts on capitalism, socialism, sports, and dogs, and Amazon decides to suspend my account due to my writings.
  - free_rms 6y ago
    You should have done that instead of posting this comment on hacker news, then. Entry 1, "a reply to lapcatsoftware". Why use social media?
    - riffic 6y ago
      While referring to a hypothetical blog, you wrote: >You should have done that In a way, the New York Post can do exactly this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24781812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24781812 These media corporations really should be paying attention to the changing landscape of open web standards. Their entanglement with corporate social platforms for eyeballs will be their own undoing.
      - free_rms 6y ago
        I'd love to see open standards proliferate for that reason. In our current world, they haven't, and you're responding here on a corporate social platform. Because that's where the people are. What if it were your ox being gored?
  - spoopyskelly 6y ago
    They will do that if your postings are wrongthink enough. And your registrar will fuck your domain too. See: stormer, 8chan, etc.
    - riffic 6y ago
      you know what, that's absolutely true. But you have a better chance of remaining online with your wrongthink than by remaining on a platform such as Twitter, Facebook, etc. See: stormer, 8chan, etc.
  - Solvitieg 6y ago
    Even if you opt-out from Twitter, etc. Your political leaders and journalists are tuned in. Thus your life is still affected.
- tzs 6y ago
  > In the past few years, we've seen these big tech companies operate in a manner that seems collusive. They follow each other's cues. One company is the first to censor, and then the other companies follow very quickly with the exact same censorship. Or they are using similar criteria to decide what is allowed, and so independently arrive at the same decision when the same thing is posted to them all.
  - _qulr 6y ago
    "Twitter will ban posts that deny the Holocaust, a company spokesperson confirmed today. The news, first reported by Bloomberg, comes two days after Facebook implemented the same policy." https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/14/21516468/twitter-holocaust-denial-banned-facebook-policy https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/14/21516468/twitter-holocau... The Holocaust happened 75 years ago. Twitter's decision came 2 days after Facebook's. Q.E.D.
    - geofft 6y ago
      Sounds like competitor A does something and competitor B decides to keep up, or both of them responded to market conditions. If airline A decides to offer free checked bags, and then a couple days later airline B does the same thing, would you think they're colluding?
      - _qulr 6y ago
        I was responding to "Or they are using similar criteria to decide what is allowed, and so independently arrive at the same decision when the same thing is posted to them all." If airline A decides to offer free checked bags, and then a couple days later airline B does the same thing, I would not think they arrived independently at the same decision. Whether they're "colluding" is of course controversial, but there should be no controversy that B did it because A did it. Is there a "market for censorship"? Perhaps there is. That would be an interesting discussion. But it's not interesting to entertain the idea that Facebook and Twitter independently and totally coincidentally decided to ban Holocaust deniers within days of each other.
- geofft 6y ago
  If they're really being collusive, then you investigate them for violations of antitrust law or otherwise figure out what they're doing that's breaking the free market, and you fix it. Alternatively, if every company in a free market seems to believe that X is objectionable, then X is considered objectionable by all of society, and it's not the place of the government to override that. If Facebook bans 419 scams, and Twitter bans 419 scams, and Reddit bans 419 scams, and Craigslist bans 419 scams, a fake Nigerian prince shouldn't be able to lobby Congress for a Constitutional right to force these private companies to host his content. They're allowed to be "collusive" in establishing shared, society-wide norms - that's how society works. (Or we could conclude that we cannot make the free market so fair as to fairly represent all of society, but as far as the Overton window in the US is concerned, that's an absurdum, and so one of our propositions must be wrong.)
  - _qulr 6y ago
    This is not the scenario described. The scenario is that all of these web sites allow 419 scams for years, and then all of the sudden in the same week they all decide to ban 419 scams. That would be really strange, don't you think?
free_rms 6y ago
The combination of twitter and Facebook are a huge percentage of public conversation. "Just go start your own twitter" is missing the point. How would you feel if they had banned all talk of russian conspiracies the last few years? Would you be making the property rights argument still?
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >How would you feel if they had banned all talk of russian conspiracies the last few years? Would you be making the property rights argument still? Yes. Because otherwise the Russians (or anyone else) could do so on my property and I would have no recourse. The appropriate way to handle this is to vote with your feet/wallet. Besides, Twitter and Facebook's revenue model is so incredibly evil and exploitative, folks should leave there even if they weren't blocking whatever it is that you think is important. I did nearly seven years ago and I'm much happier for it.
Nuzzerino 6y ago
> Twitter (and every single commercial social media space) is not the above, and can do what it wants on its service. Not exactly. The public has the right to have all laws applied fairly. The social media platforms have enjoyed the rights of a neutral forum without the liabilities that come with being a publisher. Yet the platforms act like a publisher, deciding what is seen or not seen, and the public directly or indirectly suffers as a result. This is a pretty clear case of actual rights being violated, despite the distracting narrative of "muh private company".
- petee 6y ago
  Yet you have no rights on a private platform. Is the New York Times forced to publish the same article? No, and they are a publisher. Their existence doesn't suddenly give you a right to use it and 'publish' what you'd like. Every forum online has rules about what you can and cannot post; there is no law stating they have to leave whatever you post up.
  - kofejnik 6y ago
    actually there are rules. Clearly, a TV network with 1B viewers would not be allowed to give unlimited free airtime to one party; but somehow Twitter seems to be immune (so far) to campaign finance laws
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> the phone company was (historically) a monopoly Phone companies are natural monopolies on account of the cost of building out a physical network and network effects. Social media has similar dynamics. The only difference is there is no requisite physical layer.
- riffic 6y ago
  Twitter and Facebook are not natural monopolies in the same way that Ma Bell was. I'm failing to see the similar dynamics you allude to. Is there a network effect? Sure. Did MySpace, Friendster, AOL, CompuServe etc have those first mover advantages as well? Where are they now?
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Did MySpace, Friendster, AOL, CompuServe etc have those first mover advantages as well? They had the same first-mover advantages. They never achieved Facebook's scale and network advantage. In the early days, Ma Bell also faced competition.

by riffic 6y ago

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

This seems like an incomplete summary. Shipping companies are subject to similar common carrier regulations, even though they're not monopolies, because "just hire some random guy to drive your packages around" isn't a feasible replacement. In a country where almost everyone with any serious media presence is on Twitter, it's unreasonable to tell certain arbitrary subsets of the media that their thoughts are off limits.

_qulr 6y ago

It's not just Twitter, it's also Facebook. (I believe Facebook was actually the first to take action.) What if Google does it too? In the past few years, we've seen these big tech companies operate in a manner that seems collusive. They follow each other's cues. One company is the first to censor, and then the other companies follow very quickly with the exact same censorship. (The quick collective action tends to dilute the criticism against any single one of those companies.) It's not just one company doing what it wants, it's all the major players doing the same form of censorship.

riffic 6y ago
I don't really care about Twitter or Facebook to be honest. It's not the only game in town. I'd be more concerned if I bought server hosting from AWS, stood up a WordPress blog about my thoughts on capitalism, socialism, sports, and dogs, and Amazon decides to suspend my account due to my writings.
- free_rms 6y ago
  You should have done that instead of posting this comment on hacker news, then. Entry 1, "a reply to lapcatsoftware". Why use social media?
  - riffic 6y ago
    While referring to a hypothetical blog, you wrote: >You should have done that In a way, the New York Post can do exactly this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24781812 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24781812 These media corporations really should be paying attention to the changing landscape of open web standards. Their entanglement with corporate social platforms for eyeballs will be their own undoing.
    - free_rms 6y ago
      I'd love to see open standards proliferate for that reason. In our current world, they haven't, and you're responding here on a corporate social platform. Because that's where the people are. What if it were your ox being gored?
- spoopyskelly 6y ago
  They will do that if your postings are wrongthink enough. And your registrar will fuck your domain too. See: stormer, 8chan, etc.
  - riffic 6y ago
    you know what, that's absolutely true. But you have a better chance of remaining online with your wrongthink than by remaining on a platform such as Twitter, Facebook, etc. See: stormer, 8chan, etc.
- Solvitieg 6y ago
  Even if you opt-out from Twitter, etc. Your political leaders and journalists are tuned in. Thus your life is still affected.
tzs 6y ago
> In the past few years, we've seen these big tech companies operate in a manner that seems collusive. They follow each other's cues. One company is the first to censor, and then the other companies follow very quickly with the exact same censorship. Or they are using similar criteria to decide what is allowed, and so independently arrive at the same decision when the same thing is posted to them all.
- _qulr 6y ago
  "Twitter will ban posts that deny the Holocaust, a company spokesperson confirmed today. The news, first reported by Bloomberg, comes two days after Facebook implemented the same policy." https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/14/21516468/twitter-holocaust-denial-banned-facebook-policy https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/14/21516468/twitter-holocau... The Holocaust happened 75 years ago. Twitter's decision came 2 days after Facebook's. Q.E.D.
  - geofft 6y ago
    Sounds like competitor A does something and competitor B decides to keep up, or both of them responded to market conditions. If airline A decides to offer free checked bags, and then a couple days later airline B does the same thing, would you think they're colluding?
    - _qulr 6y ago
      I was responding to "Or they are using similar criteria to decide what is allowed, and so independently arrive at the same decision when the same thing is posted to them all." If airline A decides to offer free checked bags, and then a couple days later airline B does the same thing, I would not think they arrived independently at the same decision. Whether they're "colluding" is of course controversial, but there should be no controversy that B did it because A did it. Is there a "market for censorship"? Perhaps there is. That would be an interesting discussion. But it's not interesting to entertain the idea that Facebook and Twitter independently and totally coincidentally decided to ban Holocaust deniers within days of each other.
geofft 6y ago
If they're really being collusive, then you investigate them for violations of antitrust law or otherwise figure out what they're doing that's breaking the free market, and you fix it. Alternatively, if every company in a free market seems to believe that X is objectionable, then X is considered objectionable by all of society, and it's not the place of the government to override that. If Facebook bans 419 scams, and Twitter bans 419 scams, and Reddit bans 419 scams, and Craigslist bans 419 scams, a fake Nigerian prince shouldn't be able to lobby Congress for a Constitutional right to force these private companies to host his content. They're allowed to be "collusive" in establishing shared, society-wide norms - that's how society works. (Or we could conclude that we cannot make the free market so fair as to fairly represent all of society, but as far as the Overton window in the US is concerned, that's an absurdum, and so one of our propositions must be wrong.)
- _qulr 6y ago
  This is not the scenario described. The scenario is that all of these web sites allow 419 scams for years, and then all of the sudden in the same week they all decide to ban 419 scams. That would be really strange, don't you think?

free_rms 6y ago

The combination of twitter and Facebook are a huge percentage of public conversation. "Just go start your own twitter" is missing the point. How would you feel if they had banned all talk of russian conspiracies the last few years? Would you be making the property rights argument still?

nobody9999 6y ago
>How would you feel if they had banned all talk of russian conspiracies the last few years? Would you be making the property rights argument still? Yes. Because otherwise the Russians (or anyone else) could do so on my property and I would have no recourse. The appropriate way to handle this is to vote with your feet/wallet. Besides, Twitter and Facebook's revenue model is so incredibly evil and exploitative, folks should leave there even if they weren't blocking whatever it is that you think is important. I did nearly seven years ago and I'm much happier for it.

Nuzzerino 6y ago

> Twitter (and every single commercial social media space) is not the above, and can do what it wants on its service. Not exactly. The public has the right to have all laws applied fairly. The social media platforms have enjoyed the rights of a neutral forum without the liabilities that come with being a publisher. Yet the platforms act like a publisher, deciding what is seen or not seen, and the public directly or indirectly suffers as a result. This is a pretty clear case of actual rights being violated, despite the distracting narrative of "muh private company".

petee 6y ago
Yet you have no rights on a private platform. Is the New York Times forced to publish the same article? No, and they are a publisher. Their existence doesn't suddenly give you a right to use it and 'publish' what you'd like. Every forum online has rules about what you can and cannot post; there is no law stating they have to leave whatever you post up.
- kofejnik 6y ago
  actually there are rules. Clearly, a TV network with 1B viewers would not be allowed to give unlimited free airtime to one party; but somehow Twitter seems to be immune (so far) to campaign finance laws

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> the phone company was (historically) a monopoly Phone companies are natural monopolies on account of the cost of building out a physical network and network effects. Social media has similar dynamics. The only difference is there is no requisite physical layer.

riffic 6y ago
Twitter and Facebook are not natural monopolies in the same way that Ma Bell was. I'm failing to see the similar dynamics you allude to. Is there a network effect? Sure. Did MySpace, Friendster, AOL, CompuServe etc have those first mover advantages as well? Where are they now?
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > Did MySpace, Friendster, AOL, CompuServe etc have those first mover advantages as well? They had the same first-mover advantages. They never achieved Facebook's scale and network advantage. In the early days, Ma Bell also faced competition.