3 ms·

> Given that modern social networks essentially act as public space But that's the thing: they aren't public spaces. The number of people which have their cont

> Given that modern social networks essentially act as public space But that's the thing: they aren't public spaces. The number of people which have their content hosted on a private platform is inconsequential to the legal nature of the platform. Social media are very much subject to legal regulations and lawmaking. Calling a space which is governed by a private entity that doesn't represent you / answer to you, as "public" is a contradiction. The worst you can do is persist this notion to a point where enough people believe they are public spaces. That's the most direct way of legitimizing their dominance in modern telecommunication networks.

mschuster91 5y ago
> But that's the thing: they aren't public spaces. They are the de-facto places where online discourse is held, and at least German courts have acknowledged that even speech that borders on hate speech is a part of public opinion forming (e.g. https://www.idowa.de/inhalt.gerichtsurteil-nach-sperre-facebook-muss-profil-wieder-freigeben.f2006d0b-05c8-42ee-8cfd-50b0ec18cd76.html https://www.idowa.de/inhalt.gerichtsurteil-nach-sperre-faceb... or https://www.e-recht24.de/news/facebook/11029-neues-facebook-urteil-meinungsfreiheit-wichtiger-als-gemeinschaftsstandards.html https://www.e-recht24.de/news/facebook/11029-neues-facebook-...). > Calling a space which is governed by a private entity that doesn't represent you / answer to you, as "public" is a contradiction. It is not, even in the meatspace. Spaces that are open to the public yet governed by private entities are also covered under the freedom of assembly (e.g. airports, see https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bverfg-zur-versammlungsfreiheit-kein-demo-verbot-am-frankfurter-flughafen/ https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bverfg-zur-versamml... or train stations, see https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.gerichtsurteil-zum-demonstrationsrecht-neue-perspektiven-fuer-s21-gegner.3be315c0-45ae-45b8-bf69-7af748c5aee5.html https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.gerichtsurteil-zum...). > That's the most direct way of legitimizing their dominance in modern telecommunication networks. In Germany, telecommunications providers are actually banned from terminating your access by law (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/__45k.html); https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/__45k.html); the only exceptions are non-payment and spoofing fraud. The reason for this is that access to telecommunication networks is seen as a vital basic right to participate in society.
- CaptArmchair 5y ago
  All of your points really arguments that support social media as publications. Or more to the point: they are a means to publish. Or, even more to the point: they could be seen as private publishers hosting the opinions of others in their own online publications. The affordances provided by social media to billions of people as to how they can publish and what they get to see are... really just editorial choices. Why is that contentious? Because that's exactly the one thing social media try to avoid: being seen as mere publishers. That would have massive implications: https://socialmediahq.com/if-social-media-companies-are-publishers-and-not-platforms-that-changes-everything/ https://socialmediahq.com/if-social-media-companies-are-publ... It's another argument why treating them as "public spaces" isn't much sensible.

mschuster91 5y ago

> But that's the thing: they aren't public spaces. They are the de-facto places where online discourse is held, and at least German courts have acknowledged that even speech that borders on hate speech is a part of public opinion forming (e.g. https://www.idowa.de/inhalt.gerichtsurteil-nach-sperre-facebook-muss-profil-wieder-freigeben.f2006d0b-05c8-42ee-8cfd-50b0ec18cd76.html https://www.idowa.de/inhalt.gerichtsurteil-nach-sperre-faceb... or https://www.e-recht24.de/news/facebook/11029-neues-facebook-urteil-meinungsfreiheit-wichtiger-als-gemeinschaftsstandards.html https://www.e-recht24.de/news/facebook/11029-neues-facebook-...). > Calling a space which is governed by a private entity that doesn't represent you / answer to you, as "public" is a contradiction. It is not, even in the meatspace. Spaces that are open to the public yet governed by private entities are also covered under the freedom of assembly (e.g. airports, see https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bverfg-zur-versammlungsfreiheit-kein-demo-verbot-am-frankfurter-flughafen/ https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bverfg-zur-versamml... or train stations, see https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.gerichtsurteil-zum-demonstrationsrecht-neue-perspektiven-fuer-s21-gegner.3be315c0-45ae-45b8-bf69-7af748c5aee5.html https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.gerichtsurteil-zum...). > That's the most direct way of legitimizing their dominance in modern telecommunication networks. In Germany, telecommunications providers are actually banned from terminating your access by law (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/__45k.html); https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/tkg_2004/__45k.html); the only exceptions are non-payment and spoofing fraud. The reason for this is that access to telecommunication networks is seen as a vital basic right to participate in society.

CaptArmchair 5y ago
All of your points really arguments that support social media as publications. Or more to the point: they are a means to publish. Or, even more to the point: they could be seen as private publishers hosting the opinions of others in their own online publications. The affordances provided by social media to billions of people as to how they can publish and what they get to see are... really just editorial choices. Why is that contentious? Because that's exactly the one thing social media try to avoid: being seen as mere publishers. That would have massive implications: https://socialmediahq.com/if-social-media-companies-are-publishers-and-not-platforms-that-changes-everything/ https://socialmediahq.com/if-social-media-companies-are-publ... It's another argument why treating them as "public spaces" isn't much sensible.