3 ms·

> What seems to be under attack here is the right of individual companies and people to decide who they wish to work with. Everyone who is criticizing big tech

> What seems to be under attack here is the right of individual companies and people to decide who they wish to work with. Everyone who is criticizing big tech for choosing not to work with certain people is forgetting that that same principle can be applied to them. Do you want to be forced to work with companies you abhor? You mention protected classes in your first paragraph, but then act like it's self-evident that it's bad to "force people to work with (and serve) people they abhor". What else is the concept of a protected class if not this? It's clear that we already don't have full freedom of association, and the question is where the line should be drawn. When people talk about big tech regulation, it's undergirded by many of these platforms' unique amount of market power. This isn't a novel concept; utility companies are an example of a natural monopoly: benefiting from scale, considered critical infrastructure, and legally prohibited from cutting off power to its customers, even if they don't like their politics. The topic under discussion here is whether the "new public square" (or things like payment infrastructure!) are considered critical enough to society that we want to protect access to them. I'm constitutionally (not "Constitutionally") disinclined against ill-considered regulation, and most of the conversation by government about tech regulation is pants-on-head stupid. But the dissonance between the two paras in your comment are a good indication that this discussion isn't nearly as simple as you're framing it.

mkolodny 6y ago
> The topic under discussion here is whether the "new public square" (or things like payment infrastructure!) are considered critical enough to society that we want to protect access to them. That's one core question. Another is whether it should be up to these companies to police their own platforms. Inciting violence is illegal. They're banning people and platforms inciting violence. "Repeal section 230" seems to be about making these companies responsible for policing their own platforms. When people incited violence/genocide on Facebook in Myanmar, some people held Facebook partially responsible. Now, there are people are inciting violence on Facebook in the US, and it's still an open question whether Facebook should be held liable.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  When people incited violence/genocide on <radio> in Myanmar, some people held <radio> partially responsible. Now, there are people are inciting violence on <radio> in the US, and it's still an open question whether <radio> should be held liable. There are important differences, but the parallels between the Rwandan genocide and the growth of talk radio in the US in the 90's have always struck me as interesting. That being said, I think that the new public square argument is strong, and if we're going to have internet monopolies, then they probably need to be regulated similarly to the utilities. Alternatively, they can be broken up. I don't think the current state is sustainable over the longer term.

mkolodny 6y ago

> The topic under discussion here is whether the "new public square" (or things like payment infrastructure!) are considered critical enough to society that we want to protect access to them. That's one core question. Another is whether it should be up to these companies to police their own platforms. Inciting violence is illegal. They're banning people and platforms inciting violence. "Repeal section 230" seems to be about making these companies responsible for policing their own platforms. When people incited violence/genocide on Facebook in Myanmar, some people held Facebook partially responsible. Now, there are people are inciting violence on Facebook in the US, and it's still an open question whether Facebook should be held liable.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
When people incited violence/genocide on <radio> in Myanmar, some people held <radio> partially responsible. Now, there are people are inciting violence on <radio> in the US, and it's still an open question whether <radio> should be held liable. There are important differences, but the parallels between the Rwandan genocide and the growth of talk radio in the US in the 90's have always struck me as interesting. That being said, I think that the new public square argument is strong, and if we're going to have internet monopolies, then they probably need to be regulated similarly to the utilities. Alternatively, they can be broken up. I don't think the current state is sustainable over the longer term.