3 ms·

But they don't belong to users. At best users are leasing the space (for free). There are basic agreements around behavior which are conditional for use, and ge

But they don't belong to users. At best users are leasing the space (for free). There are basic agreements around behavior which are conditional for use, and generally reasonable. The problem is the grey area, and people's political views and biases strongly affect what they think is or is not following the rules. That makes the rules extremely hard to enforce in a manner that keeps people satisfied.

solidsnack9000 6y ago
You could say the same thing about bank accounts! People are just leasing the space for free (&c) but the law recognizes an ownership interest in the material in the account, a right to the returns, &c. Banks do have certain rights with regards to the account, as well -- that's how they make any money at all -- but it's much more granular than the situation we presently have with online accounts.
- wmf 6y ago
  I don't know if that's a good analogy. Banks can also shut down your account at will; they have to give you your money but they don't have to continue providing any services. And banking is private but social media is public. It's reasonable that if a social network closes your account they should give you a backup, but forcing social networks to continue hosting offensive material in public because the user "owns" their account sounds untenable, especially since the user doesn't pay.
  - solidsnack9000 6y ago
    No one is arguing that they should be forced to continue to host offensive material. What we're talking about, is giving people standing to take Facebook to court if their account is suspended for posting something that is true and substantive. There are many examples of this in the recent past, but perhaps the most surprising is those Facebook accounts who posted material indicating that Kamala Harris's record on gun rights in California is not encouraging for gun owners (not difficult material to fact check -- she activated the handgun roster) and found themselves suspended because, according to Facebook fact checkers, "Kamala Harris is pro 2nd Amendment". More controversially, it is now being argued that Twitter's recent suspension of the New York Post was entirely baseless: that there was no reason for the social network to conclude that the news agency was reporting the products of disinformation. The way property rights usually work, you aren't able to force people to treat you fairly in a particular situation, but you can take them to court over it and be made whole. The system certainly functions as an aggregate encouragement to treat other people fairly but only in rare situations are you going to see people forced to perform in a particular way. People would still lose their accounts but expanded rights would give them a way to pursue a remedy.

solidsnack9000 6y ago

You could say the same thing about bank accounts! People are just leasing the space for free (&c) but the law recognizes an ownership interest in the material in the account, a right to the returns, &c. Banks do have certain rights with regards to the account, as well -- that's how they make any money at all -- but it's much more granular than the situation we presently have with online accounts.

wmf 6y ago
I don't know if that's a good analogy. Banks can also shut down your account at will; they have to give you your money but they don't have to continue providing any services. And banking is private but social media is public. It's reasonable that if a social network closes your account they should give you a backup, but forcing social networks to continue hosting offensive material in public because the user "owns" their account sounds untenable, especially since the user doesn't pay.
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  No one is arguing that they should be forced to continue to host offensive material. What we're talking about, is giving people standing to take Facebook to court if their account is suspended for posting something that is true and substantive. There are many examples of this in the recent past, but perhaps the most surprising is those Facebook accounts who posted material indicating that Kamala Harris's record on gun rights in California is not encouraging for gun owners (not difficult material to fact check -- she activated the handgun roster) and found themselves suspended because, according to Facebook fact checkers, "Kamala Harris is pro 2nd Amendment". More controversially, it is now being argued that Twitter's recent suspension of the New York Post was entirely baseless: that there was no reason for the social network to conclude that the news agency was reporting the products of disinformation. The way property rights usually work, you aren't able to force people to treat you fairly in a particular situation, but you can take them to court over it and be made whole. The system certainly functions as an aggregate encouragement to treat other people fairly but only in rare situations are you going to see people forced to perform in a particular way. People would still lose their accounts but expanded rights would give them a way to pursue a remedy.