4 ms·

>You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. You sound a lot like someone who is against net neutrality with this

>You're talking about using other people's services, infrastructure and registered users. You sound a lot like someone who is against net neutrality with this statement. Does ATT or Comcast have to allow all content through their network or not? Why can't they regulate what goes through their infrastructure? Twitter has a near monopoly on their type of service, similar to ATT or Comcast. What makes it ok for Twitter to regulate but not more root services? What about DNS? Can the registrars regulate who can register a name? Why?

Nursie 6y ago
> Twitter has a near monopoly on their type of service Twitter has a user base of approximately 1.5% of the world's population. It's not an essential communications tool by any stretch of the imagination. There are multiple other services, most of which gain little to no traction because it appears that to most humans, twitter-style communication is entirely uninteresting. I count myself in that (large) number. > similar to ATT or Comcast Except those companies appear to have literal monopolies on internet access in places in the US, which is not the same situation at all. Not being in the US I find that situation bizarre. > Can the registrars regulate who can register a name? Probably. Certainly the various authorities are empowered to do so. > Why? That's a far more interesting question, and certainly up for debate. Should some level of communications access be a right? If it is, who pays for it? Who runs it? Does anyone or any government get to decide what's acceptable behaviour on such a system? Why? But equally, why not? I'm entirely open to that discussion, it's probably a discussion that needs to be publicly had in western societies, at some point. But "It's my right to exercise my speech on twitter!" reeks of entitlement and is not supported by any existing concept of speech rights. It also reeks of conflating twitter, a large but still niche service, with communication in general. Twitter just isn't as important as people like to make out.

Nursie 6y ago

> Twitter has a near monopoly on their type of service Twitter has a user base of approximately 1.5% of the world's population. It's not an essential communications tool by any stretch of the imagination. There are multiple other services, most of which gain little to no traction because it appears that to most humans, twitter-style communication is entirely uninteresting. I count myself in that (large) number. > similar to ATT or Comcast Except those companies appear to have literal monopolies on internet access in places in the US, which is not the same situation at all. Not being in the US I find that situation bizarre. > Can the registrars regulate who can register a name? Probably. Certainly the various authorities are empowered to do so. > Why? That's a far more interesting question, and certainly up for debate. Should some level of communications access be a right? If it is, who pays for it? Who runs it? Does anyone or any government get to decide what's acceptable behaviour on such a system? Why? But equally, why not? I'm entirely open to that discussion, it's probably a discussion that needs to be publicly had in western societies, at some point. But "It's my right to exercise my speech on twitter!" reeks of entitlement and is not supported by any existing concept of speech rights. It also reeks of conflating twitter, a large but still niche service, with communication in general. Twitter just isn't as important as people like to make out.