6 ms·

I see this repeated often, but it's totally incorrect, they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think everyone agrees these companies nee

I see this repeated often, but it's totally incorrect, they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think everyone agrees these companies need more regulation, but the idea that they are in any way comparable to utilities is absurd.

goodluckchuck 6y ago
How so?
- root_axis 6y ago
  It's absurd on its face and this topic has been beaten to death on this forum; the burden of demonstrating why social media websites are like utilities rests on the person making the claim. However, for the sake of discussion, I'll start out with the fact that a privately owned website is not an example of shared public infrastructure. Think water, electricity and other basic staples of civilization... Facebook is not an example of that.
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  I can cook dinner, heat my house, call 911 and even check out government websites on the internet without google or facebook.
  - ethanwillis 6y ago
    More government websites are relying on infrastructure from these companies. S3, cloudfront, etc. And don't worry soon enough Amazon themselves will insert themselves between you and 911 https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/modernizing-911-to-meet-the-evolving-communications-needs-of-constituents/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/modernizing-911-to... Edit: I would like to point out my original parent comment that started all of this was in the context of FAANGs not just Google/Facebook
- scbrg 6y ago
  I admit I use some Google services. At the same time, I have no relationship with the non G:s of FAANG, which arguably is 80% of them (though perhaps not 80% of the influence). I'm not sure how they can really be considered public utilities at that point. None of the services they provide are essential.
  - strawberrypuree 6y ago
    Much of the web is hosted on AWS. So, you have an invisible relationship with Amazon. Same with Facebook and their trackers, unless you block them.
    - scbrg 6y ago
      > Much of the web is hosted on AWS. Fair enough. I'm sure I use some web sites that are hosted on AWS, I did not consider that. > Same with Facebook and their trackers, unless you block them. That may be (though I block at least some of them), but that's hardly equivalent. I don't depend in any way on Facebook tracking me. If they stopped, I would certainly not suffer from it.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > None of the services they provide are essential. I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network. To me, and many others, these online platforms are as or more essential than the phone system, which is already covered by common carrier laws.
    - Natanael_L 6y ago
      Utility regulation doesn't depend only on importance. It depends on importance plus access. That's why your local grocery store can ban you even if food is necessary for your survival, because you didn't lose access to other sources (stores).
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network. That's your choice, you don't have to use any particular online messaging service. My cousins communicate over steam more than over SMS, that doesn't mean steam is a utility.
stale2002 6y ago
> they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws. Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network. And the phone network is both a large communication platform, and is all covered by common carrier laws. The laws need to be updated to recognize that many of the online communication platforms are now as important as the phone system, and therefore should be covered by our existing common carrier laws.
- Natanael_L 6y ago
  All of this assumes an equivalence in function and access that just isn't there. If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. I can't trivially change carrier however I want. If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. More specifically, I do not need linkedin, Facebook and co at all to communicate with people over the internet, stuff like P2P software never went away.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. > If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. False. I use facebook for communicating with people more often than I use the phone network. Being banned from facebook would have a much larger effect on me, and many others, than being banned from ever making phone calls again, due to the fact that we use facebook for the vast majority of our online communication.
    - Natanael_L 6y ago
      Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so? Because the law doesn't protect convenience in these contexts.

goodluckchuck 6y ago

How so?

root_axis 6y ago
It's absurd on its face and this topic has been beaten to death on this forum; the burden of demonstrating why social media websites are like utilities rests on the person making the claim. However, for the sake of discussion, I'll start out with the fact that a privately owned website is not an example of shared public infrastructure. Think water, electricity and other basic staples of civilization... Facebook is not an example of that.
Ensorceled 6y ago
I can cook dinner, heat my house, call 911 and even check out government websites on the internet without google or facebook.
- ethanwillis 6y ago
  More government websites are relying on infrastructure from these companies. S3, cloudfront, etc. And don't worry soon enough Amazon themselves will insert themselves between you and 911 https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/modernizing-911-to-meet-the-evolving-communications-needs-of-constituents/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/publicsector/modernizing-911-to... Edit: I would like to point out my original parent comment that started all of this was in the context of FAANGs not just Google/Facebook
scbrg 6y ago
I admit I use some Google services. At the same time, I have no relationship with the non G:s of FAANG, which arguably is 80% of them (though perhaps not 80% of the influence). I'm not sure how they can really be considered public utilities at that point. None of the services they provide are essential.
- strawberrypuree 6y ago
  Much of the web is hosted on AWS. So, you have an invisible relationship with Amazon. Same with Facebook and their trackers, unless you block them.
  - scbrg 6y ago
    > Much of the web is hosted on AWS. Fair enough. I'm sure I use some web sites that are hosted on AWS, I did not consider that. > Same with Facebook and their trackers, unless you block them. That may be (though I block at least some of them), but that's hardly equivalent. I don't depend in any way on Facebook tracking me. If they stopped, I would certainly not suffer from it.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > None of the services they provide are essential. I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network. To me, and many others, these online platforms are as or more essential than the phone system, which is already covered by common carrier laws.
  - Natanael_L 6y ago
    Utility regulation doesn't depend only on importance. It depends on importance plus access. That's why your local grocery store can ban you even if food is necessary for your survival, because you didn't lose access to other sources (stores).
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > I use online messaging and online communication more than I use the telephone network. That's your choice, you don't have to use any particular online messaging service. My cousins communicate over steam more than over SMS, that doesn't mean steam is a utility.

stale2002 6y ago

> they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws. Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network. And the phone network is both a large communication platform, and is all covered by common carrier laws. The laws need to be updated to recognize that many of the online communication platforms are now as important as the phone system, and therefore should be covered by our existing common carrier laws.

Natanael_L 6y ago
All of this assumes an equivalence in function and access that just isn't there. If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. I can't trivially change carrier however I want. If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. More specifically, I do not need linkedin, Facebook and co at all to communicate with people over the internet, stuff like P2P software never went away.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > If my phone company decides who I can call, then I got issues. > If a website arbitrarily bans all kind of people it will soon be their own problem as people leave with a single click. False. I use facebook for communicating with people more often than I use the phone network. Being banned from facebook would have a much larger effect on me, and many others, than being banned from ever making phone calls again, due to the fact that we use facebook for the vast majority of our online communication.
  - Natanael_L 6y ago
    Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so? Because the law doesn't protect convenience in these contexts.