3 ms·

> they do not resemble utilities at all, not even a little bit. I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication

by 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.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so As in it would be much more difficult to replace Facebook as a communication platform for me than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls ever again. So facebook is more in the category of "can not replace" than being able to make phone calls.
      - Natanael_L 6y ago
        Again, is that because you literally don't have the physical option of communicating by other ways, or because the people you want to communicate with are too lazy to use another option? If I ask you to meet me at the bar and you're banned from the bar I've selected, it's not the bar's problem.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > literally don't have the physical option of communicating I am saying that the problems of getting kicked off of a facebook are larger than that of getting kicked off of the communication utility that is phone calls. And this is due to things like network effect. And these issues and prevention that make it difficult for people to switch is larger on facebook than it is for phone calls. So the "physical prevention" is larger for facebook than it is for phone calls.
        Natanael_L 6y ago
        I seriously doubt that. Network effect "just" makes a particular means of communication more favorable - it doesn't prevent the use of any of the options. Not being able to use the phone cuts you of from a lot of services where no option exists.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > Not being able to use the phone cuts you of from a lot of services where no option exists. Nah, it really doesn't when compared to something like getting banned from facebook. I make way more video calls with people than I make phone calls. And probably around 50% of my communication is done over FB message. It would be way less of a problem to get banned from making phone calls for me and for many other people.
root_axis 6y ago
> I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws They have nothing in common except the "communication" label. > Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network They don't. The "phone network" is what provides access to the internet, a website is not a phone company, it sits at a higher level of abstraction. That's like saying a popular TV show is a broadcast network because everyone watches that show. > online communication platforms are now as important as the phone system That's not true. If the top 10 most popular websites on the internet disappeared overnight there would still be many thousands of ways to communicate over the internet.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > They have nothing in common except the "communication" label. Sure they do. They have usecases in common. There are many ways that I communicate with people, online, that has now entirely replaced me calling those people up on the phone. That is how they are similar. They are similar in that online services are, in many cases, direct or indirect substitutes for the same exact usecase. > They don't They absolutely do. The shared functionality is that I no longer use phone companies anymore, and I instead use online services for that same exact content. > That's not true. It absolutely is true. To explain what I mean, I would say that I would truly rather be banned from the entire phone network than to be banned from something like facebook. This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact on my life than being banned from ever making a phone call again. That is how facebook is more important than the phone network. It is more important in that being banned from facebook would have a larger effect on my life than being banned from make phone calls ever again, due to the fact that I use facebook much much more for communication.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact on my life than being banned from ever making a phone call again.. If you use Facebook as your primary communication platform I can see how getting banned from Facebook would be very inconvenient, unfortunately, the fact that you would rely on Facebook in such a manner doesn't change the reality that Facebook is just one website, while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure that underpins internet connectivity. For the vast majority of Facebook users losing access to the phone network would mean losing access to not just Facebook, but everything on the internet. You might have grown accustomed to thinking of Facebook as something more than just a website, but that conception is simply wrong, the idea that Facebook is comparable to the network that Facebook runs on is categorically incorrect.

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.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > Is that because you can not replace Facebook, or because it's merely inconvenient to do so As in it would be much more difficult to replace Facebook as a communication platform for me than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls ever again. So facebook is more in the category of "can not replace" than being able to make phone calls.
    - Natanael_L 6y ago
      Again, is that because you literally don't have the physical option of communicating by other ways, or because the people you want to communicate with are too lazy to use another option? If I ask you to meet me at the bar and you're banned from the bar I've selected, it's not the bar's problem.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > literally don't have the physical option of communicating I am saying that the problems of getting kicked off of a facebook are larger than that of getting kicked off of the communication utility that is phone calls. And this is due to things like network effect. And these issues and prevention that make it difficult for people to switch is larger on facebook than it is for phone calls. So the "physical prevention" is larger for facebook than it is for phone calls.
        Natanael_L 6y ago
        I seriously doubt that. Network effect "just" makes a particular means of communication more favorable - it doesn't prevent the use of any of the options. Not being able to use the phone cuts you of from a lot of services where no option exists.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > Not being able to use the phone cuts you of from a lot of services where no option exists. Nah, it really doesn't when compared to something like getting banned from facebook. I make way more video calls with people than I make phone calls. And probably around 50% of my communication is done over FB message. It would be way less of a problem to get banned from making phone calls for me and for many other people.

root_axis 6y ago

> I think that these large communication platforms absolutely resemble other large communication platforms that are currently covered by common carrier laws They have nothing in common except the "communication" label. > Specifically, a lot of the functionality that these platforms provides, fulfills a usecase that is similar to the phone network They don't. The "phone network" is what provides access to the internet, a website is not a phone company, it sits at a higher level of abstraction. That's like saying a popular TV show is a broadcast network because everyone watches that show. > online communication platforms are now as important as the phone system That's not true. If the top 10 most popular websites on the internet disappeared overnight there would still be many thousands of ways to communicate over the internet.

stale2002 6y ago
> They have nothing in common except the "communication" label. Sure they do. They have usecases in common. There are many ways that I communicate with people, online, that has now entirely replaced me calling those people up on the phone. That is how they are similar. They are similar in that online services are, in many cases, direct or indirect substitutes for the same exact usecase. > They don't They absolutely do. The shared functionality is that I no longer use phone companies anymore, and I instead use online services for that same exact content. > That's not true. It absolutely is true. To explain what I mean, I would say that I would truly rather be banned from the entire phone network than to be banned from something like facebook. This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact on my life than being banned from ever making a phone call again. That is how facebook is more important than the phone network. It is more important in that being banned from facebook would have a larger effect on my life than being banned from make phone calls ever again, due to the fact that I use facebook much much more for communication.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > This is because I legitimately use facebook for communication more often than I use phones. Therefore, being banned from facebook would have a larger impact on my life than being banned from ever making a phone call again.. If you use Facebook as your primary communication platform I can see how getting banned from Facebook would be very inconvenient, unfortunately, the fact that you would rely on Facebook in such a manner doesn't change the reality that Facebook is just one website, while a phone network is fundamental infrastructure that underpins internet connectivity. For the vast majority of Facebook users losing access to the phone network would mean losing access to not just Facebook, but everything on the internet. You might have grown accustomed to thinking of Facebook as something more than just a website, but that conception is simply wrong, the idea that Facebook is comparable to the network that Facebook runs on is categorically incorrect.