4 ms·

A public utility is really just a private company which has been granted the special privilege of legal monopoly, by some combination of state intervention and

A public utility is really just a private company which has been granted the special privilege of legal monopoly, by some combination of state intervention and regulatory capture. Censorship may be a bad thing on a moral level, but when it comes to the law of the United States - the country in which Facebook operates - it is pretty clear that free speech protections are an imposition upon what the government may legislate upon - NOT a citizen's "right" to avoid censorship. This leaves open the possibility that private firms can legally "censor" people, while also restricting Congress's ability to write legislation that restricts speech. I am not sure how relevant it is that a service is "paid," or "unpaid." What really matters is whether all parties are dealing with each other voluntarily and not under any form of coercion. As far as I know, by making your Facebook account, you agree to have your speech moderated under their discretion. You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town, I do not really see how it can be called a utility. This also disqualifies it from being an example of a public square.

molbioguy 6y ago
> You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town ... Isn't that part of the problem? Facebook (and Twitter) are so common and widely used that alternatives are not remotely equivalent. Communication via those alternatives is extremely limiting.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  > Communication via those alternatives is extremely limiting. I disagree with this characterization of the alternatives to Facebook and Twitter. In fact, I find it hard to dispute that the popular alternatives are considerably more open-ended, more secure, and apply much less censorship. However, for the sake of argument let's assume the characterization is a fair one: that one's communications are limited when using an alternative social network where fewer people are registered users. Under this circumstance, what right does any of us have to reach the kinds of people Facebook and Twitter offer? Perhaps we shouldn't necessarily consider it "limiting," when we are unable to reach all stretches of the globe. One's ability to be "heard," really falls outside their full control as soon as one wants to be understood past the walls of the current room.
  - molbioguy 6y ago
    I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook. But Twitter seems to be a unique channel for global communication. You may be right that we shouldn't expect to have global reach, but if some people have that opportunity while others are denied based on the content of their message, how is that fair? Isn't it up to individuals to reject the message or ignore it if they deem it offensive?

molbioguy 6y ago

> You do not have to make a Facebook account, after all, and since Facebook is not the only game in town ... Isn't that part of the problem? Facebook (and Twitter) are so common and widely used that alternatives are not remotely equivalent. Communication via those alternatives is extremely limiting.

AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
> Communication via those alternatives is extremely limiting. I disagree with this characterization of the alternatives to Facebook and Twitter. In fact, I find it hard to dispute that the popular alternatives are considerably more open-ended, more secure, and apply much less censorship. However, for the sake of argument let's assume the characterization is a fair one: that one's communications are limited when using an alternative social network where fewer people are registered users. Under this circumstance, what right does any of us have to reach the kinds of people Facebook and Twitter offer? Perhaps we shouldn't necessarily consider it "limiting," when we are unable to reach all stretches of the globe. One's ability to be "heard," really falls outside their full control as soon as one wants to be understood past the walls of the current room.
- molbioguy 6y ago
  I stand corrected, there are reasonable alternatives to Facebook. But Twitter seems to be a unique channel for global communication. You may be right that we shouldn't expect to have global reach, but if some people have that opportunity while others are denied based on the content of their message, how is that fair? Isn't it up to individuals to reject the message or ignore it if they deem it offensive?