2 ms·

> It is extremely odd to find so many on Hacker News arguing for laws to say "that server you own and run in your house that hosts a small web forum...that's a

> It is extremely odd to find so many on Hacker News arguing for laws to say "that server you own and run in your house that hosts a small web forum...that's a public space now, I mean if for you the scale simply doesn't come into equation, then yeah, I guess Twitter, serving millions and millions of users and being used for communication by many public figures is exactly the same thing as a random server in someone's basement serving 100 people talking about some niche subject. Of course there has to be a line drawn to distinguish the two, and I don't know where it should be drawn. I think it's a tough call. But then, in the case of FB and Twitter, maybe this has "run out of hand"? Maybe those platforms became public forum in spite of the companies' wishes? Let's assume that's the case. Does that mean we shouldn't do anything about it? > There are no laws governing how a corporation defines it's "values" as an entity and it certainly has no need to follow that - freedom of speech is my freedom to lie through my teeth publicly about everything I believe, for example. It is, but your doing that exposes you to my freedom of calling you a liar. Hence, the "moral" component I talked about in my previous post. I think where the government should come in is when you're trying to get everyone inside your private space, to use it as a general communications medium (as opposed to niche, interest-based), and then you cut off those you don't like for whatever reason. Would you be OK with a utility, say the electric company, denying you service because they don't agree with your – non-illegal! – use of their electricity? If not, why's Twitter different?

XorNot 6y ago
You've avoided answering the question: if Twitter and other private platforms are suddenly "public spaces" due to scale...what does that mean? Practically? These are businesses with costs, expenses, legal liabilities (i.e. copyright and defamation law), advertisers to keep happy for revenue. You're demanding the government step in and nationalize a business which in no way has a monopoly on a concept which has never been protected - the right to a broadcast platform.
- peytn 6y ago
  It probably means changing laws to allow users to hold internet platforms liable for harms caused. All parties can then have their day(s) in court. That seems fair to me.
- vladvasiliu 6y ago
  I'm not talking about nationalizing anything, just defining what they are. In the particular case of Twitter and FB, I'd be on the side of declaring them utilities. They wouldn't be liable for what people say there as long as it's otherwise legal. In return, they wouldn't be allowed to cut people off without due process (in an actual court, not by some contractor following an order because the CEO doesn't like someone).

XorNot 6y ago

You've avoided answering the question: if Twitter and other private platforms are suddenly "public spaces" due to scale...what does that mean? Practically? These are businesses with costs, expenses, legal liabilities (i.e. copyright and defamation law), advertisers to keep happy for revenue. You're demanding the government step in and nationalize a business which in no way has a monopoly on a concept which has never been protected - the right to a broadcast platform.

peytn 6y ago
It probably means changing laws to allow users to hold internet platforms liable for harms caused. All parties can then have their day(s) in court. That seems fair to me.
vladvasiliu 6y ago
I'm not talking about nationalizing anything, just defining what they are. In the particular case of Twitter and FB, I'd be on the side of declaring them utilities. They wouldn't be liable for what people say there as long as it's otherwise legal. In return, they wouldn't be allowed to cut people off without due process (in an actual court, not by some contractor following an order because the CEO doesn't like someone).