5 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/ident

by 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?
- asdff 6y ago
  Not the case. 96% of americans have a cell phone: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/ 22% of americans have had a twitter account: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...
  - manigandham 6y ago
    I'm talking about social media in its entirety, not a single provider of it. Twitter/Facebook/Whatsapp have billions of users and would be treated as a single class of service.
- zdragnar 6y ago
  How the "public" uses the service is irrelevant; the legal regulations are all based on what the service is. Social media is fundamentally different from ISPs and other utilities- there are some protections and restrictions under section 230 (for now) but number of customers does not a utility make.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Public usage is how regulations and legislation are determined. Making social media a public utility is the point of the discussion here.
    - zdragnar 6y ago
      No, use of public space (spectrum, running wires to homes) drives the regulation. If the wireless spectrum was unlimited, and power, tv, internet and phone lines didnt need to be run on public land to get to private homes, they wouldn't face anything like the regulation (nor be granted monopolies) like they are now.
- kvez 6y ago
  > And social media is now at the same level as phones and internet. Okay. That doesn't mean a whole lot at the moment. The ISPs that allow you to even access Twitter at all are quite deliberately not regulated to this extent, so there's a lot of work to do before we can say that Twitter, of all things, is somehow a public utility without First Amendment rights.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too. Even if we agree that they are the right comparators, there's a problem for using that pair as a reference for how online service providers should be treated, since phone providers have a strong neutrality mandate and ISPs have none, so it basically provides no guidance whatsoever.
EEMac 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
weareallcowards 6y ago
You're talking past each other. OP was framing Twitter as a "natural monopoly": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly The barrier to creating a new social network once network effects have locked in a few major players is enormous. In this situation, the market is more efficient when the large incumbents are granted a highly-regulated monopoly status. That's how power companies work. You don't have new power grids cropping up, but the main providers are held to much stricter standards that a normal private company in terms of their quality of service and how much they can charge. If we allow mass-scale social media to continue existing, we need these sorts of strict regulatory standards. These companies have become mad with power, and there's no way to unseat them through ordinary competition.
- kazinator 6y ago
  We cannot compare Twitter to the situation with power companies, because Twitter does not own the only copper wires that are routed to your address.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, that's not how power companies are other utilities work and that's not what a natural monopoly is. A natural monopoly is one that arises due to the high costs of entering the market and other barriers to entry that make it difficult for competitors to establish a footing. Utilities are natural monopolies because it is very expensive to place pipes, transmission lines, etc., over large geographic areas. Consequently, a company must either have large starting capital or the ability to grab a large enough portion of the market to pay for the costs of the initial infrastructure outlay. The barrier to entry for the short form messaging market? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Any programmer can recreate the functional parts of Twitter in under a day, scaling aside. And there are already several Twitter competitors. They're simply not very popular because they're difficult to use.
  - weareallcowards 6y ago
    Isn't that what I said? That the cost of entering the market of mass-scale social media companies is extremely high? I wholeheartedly disagree that the cost is "nothing, nada, zilch". The network effects of having everybody using a couple of sites is what makes the cost of switching high, not the technical triviality of creating a new website.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
syshum 6y ago
Really because many government organizations have taken to twitter/social media to be the official (and in some cases only) method of public alerting and notifications around emergencies, school closing, traffic alerts, and a wide range other topics. So if I am not allowed to access twitter, or banned from the platform then I am being banned from participating in my local government So if it not a public service, then public organizations (like police, fire, schools, etc) should be barred from using the service
- andrewprock 6y ago
  As someone who gets these notifications, and who never uses Twitter, I'm pretty sure this is not the case.

by orf 6y ago

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?
asdff 6y ago
Not the case. 96% of americans have a cell phone: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/ 22% of americans have had a twitter account: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-tw...
- manigandham 6y ago
  I'm talking about social media in its entirety, not a single provider of it. Twitter/Facebook/Whatsapp have billions of users and would be treated as a single class of service.
zdragnar 6y ago
How the "public" uses the service is irrelevant; the legal regulations are all based on what the service is. Social media is fundamentally different from ISPs and other utilities- there are some protections and restrictions under section 230 (for now) but number of customers does not a utility make.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Public usage is how regulations and legislation are determined. Making social media a public utility is the point of the discussion here.
  - zdragnar 6y ago
    No, use of public space (spectrum, running wires to homes) drives the regulation. If the wireless spectrum was unlimited, and power, tv, internet and phone lines didnt need to be run on public land to get to private homes, they wouldn't face anything like the regulation (nor be granted monopolies) like they are now.
kvez 6y ago
> And social media is now at the same level as phones and internet. Okay. That doesn't mean a whole lot at the moment. The ISPs that allow you to even access Twitter at all are quite deliberately not regulated to this extent, so there's a lot of work to do before we can say that Twitter, of all things, is somehow a public utility without First Amendment rights.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Your ISP and phone provider are private/non-state-owned entities too. Even if we agree that they are the right comparators, there's a problem for using that pair as a reference for how online service providers should be treated, since phone providers have a strong neutrality mandate and ISPs have none, so it basically provides no guidance whatsoever.

EEMac 6y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...

weareallcowards 6y ago

You're talking past each other. OP was framing Twitter as a "natural monopoly": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly The barrier to creating a new social network once network effects have locked in a few major players is enormous. In this situation, the market is more efficient when the large incumbents are granted a highly-regulated monopoly status. That's how power companies work. You don't have new power grids cropping up, but the main providers are held to much stricter standards that a normal private company in terms of their quality of service and how much they can charge. If we allow mass-scale social media to continue existing, we need these sorts of strict regulatory standards. These companies have become mad with power, and there's no way to unseat them through ordinary competition.

kazinator 6y ago
We cannot compare Twitter to the situation with power companies, because Twitter does not own the only copper wires that are routed to your address.
gamblor956 6y ago
No, that's not how power companies are other utilities work and that's not what a natural monopoly is. A natural monopoly is one that arises due to the high costs of entering the market and other barriers to entry that make it difficult for competitors to establish a footing. Utilities are natural monopolies because it is very expensive to place pipes, transmission lines, etc., over large geographic areas. Consequently, a company must either have large starting capital or the ability to grab a large enough portion of the market to pay for the costs of the initial infrastructure outlay. The barrier to entry for the short form messaging market? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Any programmer can recreate the functional parts of Twitter in under a day, scaling aside. And there are already several Twitter competitors. They're simply not very popular because they're difficult to use.
- weareallcowards 6y ago
  Isn't that what I said? That the cost of entering the market of mass-scale social media companies is extremely high? I wholeheartedly disagree that the cost is "nothing, nada, zilch". The network effects of having everybody using a couple of sites is what makes the cost of switching high, not the technical triviality of creating a new website.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

syshum 6y ago

Really because many government organizations have taken to twitter/social media to be the official (and in some cases only) method of public alerting and notifications around emergencies, school closing, traffic alerts, and a wide range other topics. So if I am not allowed to access twitter, or banned from the platform then I am being banned from participating in my local government So if it not a public service, then public organizations (like police, fire, schools, etc) should be barred from using the service

andrewprock 6y ago
As someone who gets these notifications, and who never uses Twitter, I'm pretty sure this is not the case.