4 ms·

But why? You offer no explanation other than saying you disagree. What exactly is the difference? More people communicate over social media than phone lines to

But why? You offer no explanation other than saying you disagree. What exactly is the difference? More people communicate over social media than phone lines today. Why is the former not equivalent to the later? Twitter's CEO Jack Dorsey said that he believes social media is a human right - do you disagree with him?

snowwrestler 6y ago
You keep talking about social media in general but the question is whether Twitter and Facebook specifically--just those two companies--are critical infrastructure. Obviously Twitter is not because it has been down for about an hour now and life is going on just fine.
- Karunamon 6y ago
  I'm not sure that "critical infrastructure" as regards to communications mediums and legislation should be understood in the terms of absolute necessity, rather by terms of popularity and wide usage. That wide usage brings with it a lot of power on the part of the platform owners and a certain immunity to being boycotted or replaced. The critical question is if they ought to be allowed to wield that power unchecked, up to and including when that reach has progressed far enough to have real impacts on our political system, and so impacts on people's lives. Remember, we're talking about what we'd like the law to be, not what the law is. These definitions are up for debate and redefinition.
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Of course they ought to be allowed to affect the political system. The whole point of the First Amendment is to ensure that private citizens can act to change the government—the fundamental concept behind the design of the U.S. federal government. News organizations have wielded this power for at least a century. Their decisions on what stories to publish obviously have political implications, and in some cases their editorial boards even explicitly endorse one candidate. Facebook and Twitter are private entities, just like The NY Times or Fox News.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Social media are specifically not publishers, so no they're not "just like" the NYT/Fox. They don't create content as an organization and only facilitate communication, which is exactly why section 230 is being contested.
      - snowwrestler 6y ago
        Section 230 applies equally to any interactive computer service, whether it is operated by Twitter, Facebook, NY Times, Fox, Ycombinator, or even you or me. The First Amendment applies to everyone in the U.S.
        manigandham 6y ago
        Yes, and since social networks are only third-party content, they should not be interfering with it otherwise they are exercising editorial control and are now first-party content.
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      So you see no problem whatsoever with large, nigh-monopolistic interests having absolute authority over how politics is discussed? This is not a strawman, I simply see no other way to interpret this comment.
- manigandham 6y ago
  I said communications medium, not infrastructure. Life goes on fine when the internet is down or your phone is disabled, but they're still considered important and necessary. Facebook and Twitter are just 2 of the biggest with many others like TikTok, Whatsapp, WeChat. It's the size and scope that should be used as a measure of when they cross over into public utility vs private project.

snowwrestler 6y ago

You keep talking about social media in general but the question is whether Twitter and Facebook specifically--just those two companies--are critical infrastructure. Obviously Twitter is not because it has been down for about an hour now and life is going on just fine.

Karunamon 6y ago
I'm not sure that "critical infrastructure" as regards to communications mediums and legislation should be understood in the terms of absolute necessity, rather by terms of popularity and wide usage. That wide usage brings with it a lot of power on the part of the platform owners and a certain immunity to being boycotted or replaced. The critical question is if they ought to be allowed to wield that power unchecked, up to and including when that reach has progressed far enough to have real impacts on our political system, and so impacts on people's lives. Remember, we're talking about what we'd like the law to be, not what the law is. These definitions are up for debate and redefinition.
- snowwrestler 6y ago
  Of course they ought to be allowed to affect the political system. The whole point of the First Amendment is to ensure that private citizens can act to change the government—the fundamental concept behind the design of the U.S. federal government. News organizations have wielded this power for at least a century. Their decisions on what stories to publish obviously have political implications, and in some cases their editorial boards even explicitly endorse one candidate. Facebook and Twitter are private entities, just like The NY Times or Fox News.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Social media are specifically not publishers, so no they're not "just like" the NYT/Fox. They don't create content as an organization and only facilitate communication, which is exactly why section 230 is being contested.
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      Section 230 applies equally to any interactive computer service, whether it is operated by Twitter, Facebook, NY Times, Fox, Ycombinator, or even you or me. The First Amendment applies to everyone in the U.S.
      - manigandham 6y ago
        Yes, and since social networks are only third-party content, they should not be interfering with it otherwise they are exercising editorial control and are now first-party content.
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    So you see no problem whatsoever with large, nigh-monopolistic interests having absolute authority over how politics is discussed? This is not a strawman, I simply see no other way to interpret this comment.
manigandham 6y ago
I said communications medium, not infrastructure. Life goes on fine when the internet is down or your phone is disabled, but they're still considered important and necessary. Facebook and Twitter are just 2 of the biggest with many others like TikTok, Whatsapp, WeChat. It's the size and scope that should be used as a measure of when they cross over into public utility vs private project.