4 ms·

> should not be compelled to carry content they find objectionable, but they should also not be allowed to dominate the channel How do you do that though? The

> should not be compelled to carry content they find objectionable, but they should also not be allowed to dominate the channel How do you do that though? The network effect almost always chooses a single winner in the social media market. YouTube is a perfect example. The content creators go where the market is. How do you make sure YouTube doesn't dominate the channel? My (imperfect) solution is that once you get to the channel domination point, you should be treated as a utility - e.g. you can't kick people off your service unless they've broken the law.

mcguire 6y ago
Your imperfect solution is what we have, minus any moderation. That doesn't sound pleasant. I might be tempted to go along, though, if your utility is transparent to the legal process---you can sue people for fraud, for example.
farias0 6y ago
The implication of what you're saying is that fighting for net neutrality isn't enough, we need to ensure ample platform to everyone. But is it true? Isn't free speech more about not suffering legal persecution?
Grimm1 6y ago
Your solution means no real competition or innovation could take place in that space then. I know it was just a quick take but there's a lot of consequences to that route imo. There's also nothing saying that everyone always goes to one social platform. Facebook for instance bought all of their recent potential competitors so it's more of a self fulfilling prophecy right now and one that really needs to be handled by anti trust imo.
- starik36 6y ago
  All I said was that YouTube should be treated as a utility - - e.g. you can't kick people off your service unless they've broken the law. That is the extent of its treatment as a utility. It doesn't prevent anyone from competing against them.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    "All I said was that YouTube should be treated as a utility" Right I don't think you've understood the implications of being a utility in the US. In the US: "Public utilities commissions may grant public utilities certain monopoly rights to facilitate servicing a given geographic area with a single system. For example, in California, prohibitions against anticompetitive behavior under the Unfair Practices Law do not apply to public utility corporations." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility#:~:text=A%20public%20utility%20is%20an,heat%2C%20and%20television%20cable%20systems https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility#:~:text=A%20p....
Animats 6y ago
There are solutions through antitrust law. One is that dominant carriers can't own content. AT&T should have to sell off Warner. Another is to make local carriers common carriers, so they just provide transport independent of content. Telcos are still common carriers for analog telephony, but managed to escape it for Internet services.
- starik36 6y ago
  But none of these solutions applies to today's social media. YouTube doesn't carry any significant own content.
nefitty 6y ago
I assume incumbents might end up in the position where their smaller competitors have to deal with less regulation. For example, if MySpace had been treated differently than Facebook, it might have brought MySpace down much more quickly, but at the same time kept a lid on Facebook’s influence.

mcguire 6y ago

Your imperfect solution is what we have, minus any moderation. That doesn't sound pleasant. I might be tempted to go along, though, if your utility is transparent to the legal process---you can sue people for fraud, for example.

farias0 6y ago

The implication of what you're saying is that fighting for net neutrality isn't enough, we need to ensure ample platform to everyone. But is it true? Isn't free speech more about not suffering legal persecution?

Grimm1 6y ago

Your solution means no real competition or innovation could take place in that space then. I know it was just a quick take but there's a lot of consequences to that route imo. There's also nothing saying that everyone always goes to one social platform. Facebook for instance bought all of their recent potential competitors so it's more of a self fulfilling prophecy right now and one that really needs to be handled by anti trust imo.

starik36 6y ago
All I said was that YouTube should be treated as a utility - - e.g. you can't kick people off your service unless they've broken the law. That is the extent of its treatment as a utility. It doesn't prevent anyone from competing against them.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  "All I said was that YouTube should be treated as a utility" Right I don't think you've understood the implications of being a utility in the US. In the US: "Public utilities commissions may grant public utilities certain monopoly rights to facilitate servicing a given geographic area with a single system. For example, in California, prohibitions against anticompetitive behavior under the Unfair Practices Law do not apply to public utility corporations." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility#:~:text=A%20public%20utility%20is%20an,heat%2C%20and%20television%20cable%20systems https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility#:~:text=A%20p....

Animats 6y ago

There are solutions through antitrust law. One is that dominant carriers can't own content. AT&T should have to sell off Warner. Another is to make local carriers common carriers, so they just provide transport independent of content. Telcos are still common carriers for analog telephony, but managed to escape it for Internet services.

starik36 6y ago
But none of these solutions applies to today's social media. YouTube doesn't carry any significant own content.

nefitty 6y ago

I assume incumbents might end up in the position where their smaller competitors have to deal with less regulation. For example, if MySpace had been treated differently than Facebook, it might have brought MySpace down much more quickly, but at the same time kept a lid on Facebook’s influence.