4 ms·

You discuss governance, access to voters, wielding of power and free speech but not the meat of my comment: a customer not playing by the rules they agreed to,

You discuss governance, access to voters, wielding of power and free speech but not the meat of my comment: a customer not playing by the rules they agreed to, and the implication that they should be allowed to break the rules they agreed to simply because they're important. An organisation must now allow people to flaunt their rules, helpless to remove them despite the abuse that they perpetrate?

saladgnu054 6y ago
Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service, an online platform also not be allowed to refuse service? Is someone misbehaving, great, inform the actual authorities of their jurisdiction. Actual governments, with the people's mandate, are the only ones with authority to set the laws. Not tech monopolies.
- Talanes 6y ago
  >Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service. You're not allowed to walk in to Costco without a Costco card. Plenty of restaurants and clubs have a dress code. Most places have "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" rules.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service. No, that is not true for all private services. For example, common carriers have strong restrictions on their ability to refuse service to others. Common carrier laws aren't particularly controversial. These existing common carrier laws could be expanded to apply to other things.
    - Talanes 6y ago
      Common carriers are a tiny minority of businesses. Plenty of other exception exist too, but they are exceptions. Because the default is that businesses do reserve the right to refuse service.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        They are exceptions yes. And people are advocating for additional exceptions to be made and they are giving justification for it. So you cant just straight up dismiss the idea that we should consider requiring a few more businesses to fall under our existing and uncontroversial laws common carrier laws.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I don't think you can square that circle. Let's say it's 2024, and the dominant social media platform is called Witted[1]. They have their terms of service, but the terms of service have some ambiguity. In fact, Witted deliberately left some ambiguity, for two reasons. First, you can't absolutely codify human interactions - human communication is too complex. Second, Witted wanted the ambiguity, because it gave Witted more power. Now President Harris is running for re-election, and she is aware of how much power Witted has. She wants to rein it in. Witted therefore finds some grounds for declaring Harris to be in violation of Witted's terms of service, and kills her account. That leaves the Republican candidate, Romney, a channel to voters that Harris can't adequately respond to. Romney wins the election. (There's talk about Witted being biased, but that resonates less with voters than what Romney can do with a Witted feed that Harris can't answer.) Now, you say, that shouldn't be allowed to happen. I agree. But how are you going to stop it, without giving the exact same power to someone else? And who are you going to trust with that power? The government? Absolutely not. The EU commission? Equally not. But who? I assert that there is nobody that you can trust with that power. But the power already exists, and we've just seen it used. Now what do we do? (Preferably before 2024 rolls around...) --- [1] Actually, Witted would be a pretty good name for a social media platform.
- readflaggedcomm 6y ago
  Democratize it: put government in charge of that company. (And also campaign finance.)
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  The power a media company has is derived from its market share, which starts with zero for a startup, and grows with the successful performance of the company. Similarly, the effect a company has by withdrawing access to its services is proportional to the power it has earned through its performance over time. Thus, the power and influence a media company has is not arbitrary. it is a function of its social relations i.e. the percentage of society it has converted into customers, patrons, and followers. To directly address your example - it already exists. One example: Fox News is selective with its choice of guests. Some types of guests get more access than others. The way the system deals with this is to allow other vendors besides Fox to operate competing networks.
s17n 6y ago
The point is that writing the rules should to a large extent be taken out of these organization's hands, because they control vital infrastructure. The new, regulated rules will probably look pretty similar to the existing ToS except without the "the company is allowed to do whatever it wants" clauses, and with actual appeals processes.

saladgnu054 6y ago

Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service, an online platform also not be allowed to refuse service? Is someone misbehaving, great, inform the actual authorities of their jurisdiction. Actual governments, with the people's mandate, are the only ones with authority to set the laws. Not tech monopolies.

Talanes 6y ago
>Simple, how about just like a store is not allowed to refuse service A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service. You're not allowed to walk in to Costco without a Costco card. Plenty of restaurants and clubs have a dress code. Most places have "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" rules.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > A store is absolutely allowed to refuse service. No, that is not true for all private services. For example, common carriers have strong restrictions on their ability to refuse service to others. Common carrier laws aren't particularly controversial. These existing common carrier laws could be expanded to apply to other things.
  - Talanes 6y ago
    Common carriers are a tiny minority of businesses. Plenty of other exception exist too, but they are exceptions. Because the default is that businesses do reserve the right to refuse service.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      They are exceptions yes. And people are advocating for additional exceptions to be made and they are giving justification for it. So you cant just straight up dismiss the idea that we should consider requiring a few more businesses to fall under our existing and uncontroversial laws common carrier laws.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

I don't think you can square that circle. Let's say it's 2024, and the dominant social media platform is called Witted[1]. They have their terms of service, but the terms of service have some ambiguity. In fact, Witted deliberately left some ambiguity, for two reasons. First, you can't absolutely codify human interactions - human communication is too complex. Second, Witted wanted the ambiguity, because it gave Witted more power. Now President Harris is running for re-election, and she is aware of how much power Witted has. She wants to rein it in. Witted therefore finds some grounds for declaring Harris to be in violation of Witted's terms of service, and kills her account. That leaves the Republican candidate, Romney, a channel to voters that Harris can't adequately respond to. Romney wins the election. (There's talk about Witted being biased, but that resonates less with voters than what Romney can do with a Witted feed that Harris can't answer.) Now, you say, that shouldn't be allowed to happen. I agree. But how are you going to stop it, without giving the exact same power to someone else? And who are you going to trust with that power? The government? Absolutely not. The EU commission? Equally not. But who? I assert that there is nobody that you can trust with that power. But the power already exists, and we've just seen it used. Now what do we do? (Preferably before 2024 rolls around...) --- [1] Actually, Witted would be a pretty good name for a social media platform.

readflaggedcomm 6y ago
Democratize it: put government in charge of that company. (And also campaign finance.)
wombatmobile 6y ago
The power a media company has is derived from its market share, which starts with zero for a startup, and grows with the successful performance of the company. Similarly, the effect a company has by withdrawing access to its services is proportional to the power it has earned through its performance over time. Thus, the power and influence a media company has is not arbitrary. it is a function of its social relations i.e. the percentage of society it has converted into customers, patrons, and followers. To directly address your example - it already exists. One example: Fox News is selective with its choice of guests. Some types of guests get more access than others. The way the system deals with this is to allow other vendors besides Fox to operate competing networks.

s17n 6y ago

The point is that writing the rules should to a large extent be taken out of these organization's hands, because they control vital infrastructure. The new, regulated rules will probably look pretty similar to the existing ToS except without the "the company is allowed to do whatever it wants" clauses, and with actual appeals processes.