3 ms·

> My hope is that this will drive a reformist movement around digital rights (speech, commerce, etc.) As well as a movement from platforms to protocols. I don’

> My hope is that this will drive a reformist movement around digital rights (speech, commerce, etc.) As well as a movement from platforms to protocols. I don’t have much hope for this, mainly because being the owner of a platform is much more profitable than being one of many protocol end points. Look at git. It is hard to think of a more open protocol, and yet GitHub absolutely dominates and it is a big deal if they decide to cut off your repo. A better alternative is for government to fund and operate critical infrastructure or at least heavily regulate it. I don’t have to worry that I will get deplatformed from mail, because the USPS is there and they have strict legal requirements prohibiting them from deplatforming people. I don’t have to worry that I won’t be deplatformed from roads, because most roads are operated by the government, which is under strict legal precedents that they can’t deplatform me. It is similar with utilities such as electricity, water, gas which are privately operated but heavily regulated. Some of the internet infrastructure is both becoming more vital as has economies of scale such that there is an inherent drive for consolidation. As such, I think it is becoming time that such things be regulated like utilities.

engineer_22 6y ago
Is EFF doing the work to advocate for responsible regulation? Is there an alternative to EFF (Electronic Frontiers Foundation) that is more in line with the spirit of your comment?
bananabreakfast 6y ago
You are using the term "deplatform" completely wrong. None of the things you mention are platforms. Mail is not a platform. Roads are not a platform. Electricity, water and gas are not platforms. These are all examples of point to point connection. None of them allow you to reach millions of people unfederated. If you start sending out illegal hate mail to millions of people, you bet you'll be "deplatformed" by the USPS. They will cut off your account and probably press charges.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > If you start sending out illegal hate mail to millions of people, you bet you'll be "deplatformed" by the USPS. If you start sending out legal harassment mail to millions of people, you'll get a discount.
- engineer_22 6y ago
  If we're going to be picky, they used the word "platform" as a verb, not a noun. Actually they used the negative, "deplatform"... maybe we could claim they used the wrong verb. I think they were trying to make the argument that high tech sector is finally providing services that are clearly in the public's interest and could/should be treated like utilities. I think they're right - the government should get involved in balancing the scales between service provider and users.

engineer_22 6y ago

Is EFF doing the work to advocate for responsible regulation? Is there an alternative to EFF (Electronic Frontiers Foundation) that is more in line with the spirit of your comment?

bananabreakfast 6y ago

You are using the term "deplatform" completely wrong. None of the things you mention are platforms. Mail is not a platform. Roads are not a platform. Electricity, water and gas are not platforms. These are all examples of point to point connection. None of them allow you to reach millions of people unfederated. If you start sending out illegal hate mail to millions of people, you bet you'll be "deplatformed" by the USPS. They will cut off your account and probably press charges.

Dylan16807 6y ago
> If you start sending out illegal hate mail to millions of people, you bet you'll be "deplatformed" by the USPS. If you start sending out legal harassment mail to millions of people, you'll get a discount.
engineer_22 6y ago
If we're going to be picky, they used the word "platform" as a verb, not a noun. Actually they used the negative, "deplatform"... maybe we could claim they used the wrong verb. I think they were trying to make the argument that high tech sector is finally providing services that are clearly in the public's interest and could/should be treated like utilities. I think they're right - the government should get involved in balancing the scales between service provider and users.