6 ms·

Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identi

by blhack 6y ago

Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc. But that actually doesn't even damage the argument: would it be okay if Google decided that they didn't like NyPost's politics, so they disabled the functionality of all of their nest thermostats? What if they used smart locks on their office: could they just disable the "unlock" function on the doors? Would anybody be supporting this?

richardwhiuk 6y ago
Twitter isn't critical infrastructure.....
jmuguy 6y ago
This may be the best example I've seen on the internet of a bad faith argument.
function_seven 6y ago
No. Google is different. They hold a monopoly on search that I think should be broken up. I have big problems with the power Google wields in finding things online. But, going back to my previous comment, it would in a way be a good thing if Google started capriciously "disappearing" sites like this, in a high-profile manner. It would accelerate the move to other search providers and bring a more diversified Internet to us all. (I'm not advocating for it, but the end result would probably be better than what we have now: SEO madness all to please The One Algorithm.) Twitter has competition. Reddit, Facebook, Apple News, and traditional media outlets all disseminate information. They all offer notifications on your phone. Where we're typing this out is HN, which is another news dissemination and discussion service. The more Twitter does things to make it clear it's not a neutral platform, the more other services can find users. I do not want Twitter to be a monopoly platform. Tagging them with some common-carrier-like status, while allowing them to remain private, just entrenches that monopoly.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  The GP's Google example concerns thermostats, not search. Google doesn't have a thermostat monopoly. Is it therefore okay for Google to remotely deactivate the thermostats of people they've decided to dislike?
  - function_seven 6y ago
    If they were just a thermostat company, then yeah. They could say “we don’t provide climate control services to the GOP”, or whatever. (Contact law covers how to handle refunds for devices already purchased, etc. I’m talking about the core issue of companies being able to choose their customers) But, because they have a monopoly in search, they can abuse it to dictate terms in other sectors. That’s what I have a problem with. It’s also a story we’ve seen recently, where some poor user gets their Google Cloud acct locked, and loses their YouTube videos as a result. Those stories are what convinced me that Google needs to be chopped up.
  - thisiszilff 6y ago
    It isn't a very good comparison given that those thermostats/locks aren't free and it's unlikely Google wouldn't like someone because of how they are using their thermostat. In this case, twitter provides the account and the objections are to how the account is being used.
    - ethanwillis 6y ago
      Just because Twitter doesn't debit your bank account doesn't mean their service is free. They're selling you to any buyer who's willing to pay, and it's a lot of buyers. Just because these companies engage in fancy accounting doesn't mean we aren't consumers in a traditional sense and doesn't mean we waive rights consumers typically are given.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if they already block access to nest.com or related APIs for users either residing in, or with an IP locating them in a US-sanctioned country.
orf 6y ago
> Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc. It's all of these, except private. It's a privately run notification/messaging/authentication/identity/verification service. Just one that is widely used. That doesn't make it "public".
- manigandham 6y ago
  Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too. The corporation providing the service doesn't matter, it's the how the service itself is used by the public. And social media is now at the same level as phones and internet.
  - orf 6y ago
    > Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too. Yep, and they can also terminate your service for any reason they choose.
    - khawkins 6y ago
      I don't think this is true, and even if it were it would be something everyone except literal fascists would oppose.
      - judge2020 6y ago
        This isn't true in text, but national service providers very well could terminate someone for 'violating' their acceptable use policies and, unless they make a huge stink about it that gains state-wide or nation-wide attention, nobody's going to look too deep into why you were terminated. Maybe fining a small claims case could do something about it but I wouldn't count on it.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      How about a world where corporations have regulations that serve the public?
dmurray 6y ago
Hopefully the Post would have signed a contract with their smart lock supplier that would detail the circumstances where the supplier could disable that function.
Klonoar 6y ago
No, Twitter is equivalent to a store or restaurant that you can opt to enter, or opt to avoid. They're also within their general rights to disallow service to you. They _run_ on public infrastructure, just like a store or restaurant. That should be available to all.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ethagnawl 6y ago
If it's critical infrastructure, then it should be regulated. Right?
camillomiller 6y ago
Well, then it has to be so also from a legal standpoint. Nationalize Twitter and Google, or declare them public utilities. Until then, they're totally free to do what they want. In my opinion they should have already shut down President Trump's account, regardless of the backlash they would receive. They could single-handedly eradicate a broadcast opportunity for the single person closer to a literal dictator the U.S. has ever had.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tempestn 6y ago
The difference is that Twitter ostensibly believes the NY Post was posting misinformation to Twitter. They're not disabling an unrelated service just because they don't like the Post's politics. You can disagree with Twitter's take of course, but I don't think the analogy holds.

by blhack 6y ago

richardwhiuk 6y ago

Twitter isn't critical infrastructure.....

jmuguy 6y ago

This may be the best example I've seen on the internet of a bad faith argument.

function_seven 6y ago

No. Google is different. They hold a monopoly on search that I think should be broken up. I have big problems with the power Google wields in finding things online. But, going back to my previous comment, it would in a way be a good thing if Google started capriciously "disappearing" sites like this, in a high-profile manner. It would accelerate the move to other search providers and bring a more diversified Internet to us all. (I'm not advocating for it, but the end result would probably be better than what we have now: SEO madness all to please The One Algorithm.) Twitter has competition. Reddit, Facebook, Apple News, and traditional media outlets all disseminate information. They all offer notifications on your phone. Where we're typing this out is HN, which is another news dissemination and discussion service. The more Twitter does things to make it clear it's not a neutral platform, the more other services can find users. I do not want Twitter to be a monopoly platform. Tagging them with some common-carrier-like status, while allowing them to remain private, just entrenches that monopoly.

bigbubba 6y ago
The GP's Google example concerns thermostats, not search. Google doesn't have a thermostat monopoly. Is it therefore okay for Google to remotely deactivate the thermostats of people they've decided to dislike?
- function_seven 6y ago
  If they were just a thermostat company, then yeah. They could say “we don’t provide climate control services to the GOP”, or whatever. (Contact law covers how to handle refunds for devices already purchased, etc. I’m talking about the core issue of companies being able to choose their customers) But, because they have a monopoly in search, they can abuse it to dictate terms in other sectors. That’s what I have a problem with. It’s also a story we’ve seen recently, where some poor user gets their Google Cloud acct locked, and loses their YouTube videos as a result. Those stories are what convinced me that Google needs to be chopped up.
- thisiszilff 6y ago
  It isn't a very good comparison given that those thermostats/locks aren't free and it's unlikely Google wouldn't like someone because of how they are using their thermostat. In this case, twitter provides the account and the objections are to how the account is being used.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    Just because Twitter doesn't debit your bank account doesn't mean their service is free. They're selling you to any buyer who's willing to pay, and it's a lot of buyers. Just because these companies engage in fancy accounting doesn't mean we aren't consumers in a traditional sense and doesn't mean we waive rights consumers typically are given.
- judge2020 6y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if they already block access to nest.com or related APIs for users either residing in, or with an IP locating them in a US-sanctioned country.

orf 6y ago

> Twitter is an infrastructure on top of which thousands of services are run. It's a notification service, it's a messaging server, it's an authentication/identify verification service, it's a news dissemination and discussion service, etc. It's all of these, except private. It's a privately run notification/messaging/authentication/identity/verification service. Just one that is widely used. That doesn't make it "public".

manigandham 6y ago
Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too. The corporation providing the service doesn't matter, it's the how the service itself is used by the public. And social media is now at the same level as phones and internet.
- orf 6y ago
  > Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too. Yep, and they can also terminate your service for any reason they choose.
  - khawkins 6y ago
    I don't think this is true, and even if it were it would be something everyone except literal fascists would oppose.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      This isn't true in text, but national service providers very well could terminate someone for 'violating' their acceptable use policies and, unless they make a huge stink about it that gains state-wide or nation-wide attention, nobody's going to look too deep into why you were terminated. Maybe fining a small claims case could do something about it but I wouldn't count on it.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    How about a world where corporations have regulations that serve the public?

dmurray 6y ago

Hopefully the Post would have signed a contract with their smart lock supplier that would detail the circumstances where the supplier could disable that function.

Klonoar 6y ago

No, Twitter is equivalent to a store or restaurant that you can opt to enter, or opt to avoid. They're also within their general rights to disallow service to you. They _run_ on public infrastructure, just like a store or restaurant. That should be available to all.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ethagnawl 6y ago

If it's critical infrastructure, then it should be regulated. Right?

camillomiller 6y ago

Well, then it has to be so also from a legal standpoint. Nationalize Twitter and Google, or declare them public utilities. Until then, they're totally free to do what they want. In my opinion they should have already shut down President Trump's account, regardless of the backlash they would receive. They could single-handedly eradicate a broadcast opportunity for the single person closer to a literal dictator the U.S. has ever had.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tempestn 6y ago

The difference is that Twitter ostensibly believes the NY Post was posting misinformation to Twitter. They're not disabling an unrelated service just because they don't like the Post's politics. You can disagree with Twitter's take of course, but I don't think the analogy holds.