3 ms·

Exact laws: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchap... The rest

by baumy 5y ago

Exact laws: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II/part-I https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchap... The rest of your question I consider invalid. Companies do not have civil rights [1]. Hell, it's in the definition of the word: "relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters" But clearly the existing common carrier regulations don't infringe on the "civil rights" of the companies they apply to, so even accepting your false premise, this is very straightforward. [1] or at least, they didn't until extremely recently https://www.inquirer.com/business/hobby-lobby-citizens-united-corporations-free-speech-20190108.html https://www.inquirer.com/business/hobby-lobby-citizens-unite...

michaelmrose 5y ago
The law you linked just in plain language doesn't apply to websites. Not only does it not apply to websites but laws like CDA Section 230 explicitly disclaim any such regulation by explicitly providing for and protecting their right to moderate their users content. It's disingenuous to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation when one law has nothing to say about the matter and at least one contrary law would need to be repealed. We must then look at WHY common carrier laws exist. It is often impractical to have parallel communication infrastructure in the same way as it is impractical to have a parallel system of roads and bridges so it is important that it serve all comers in order to provide for the needs of society. Social media is the exact opposite. They are a dime a dozen and no barrier exists to making another one. If it comes to pass you don't have much of an audience on your alternative network that is a personal problem not an issue for society to solve for you by enforcing your presence where you aren't wanted.
- stale2002 5y ago
  You just said this "Please cite the exact laws that we ought to apply " Emphasis on the word "ought". And you responded to someone bringing up other laws by saying this "to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation ". Which nobody said. Instead, the other person was directly answering your question, of which specific laws "ought" be applied to social media companies. The implication being, that they do not currently apply now, but should, by changing the law such that they do. > at least one contrary law would need to be repealed You used the word ought. That was your premise. And someone answered your question of what ought happen. So, the implication, is that other contrary law, also ought be changed. I am not sure why this always happens in these types of conversations. People say X is bad, and then someone else comes in and says "Well actually, X is totally legal!". Nobody here said anything about it being illegal. Instead we said that X is bad. And the implication being that we want something to change, such that the bad thing stops. Saying X is legal, is just an end run around, to ignore the original point that was brought up, by talking about the legality, when nobody brought up was is legal in the first place. Yeah, we knows the bad thing is legal. Thats why it is happening. Thats why we are complaining about it. Because it is legal, and happening, and we don't want it to happen, and we want to figure out a way to make it not happen. That why, in my original comment I said that we should "extend" common carrier laws. "Extend" means change. It means that I already know that common carriers laws don't apply, and I want them to apply. By changing those laws. Like, my god. This always happens, and the conversations are so stupid.

by baumy 5y ago

michaelmrose 5y ago

The law you linked just in plain language doesn't apply to websites. Not only does it not apply to websites but laws like CDA Section 230 explicitly disclaim any such regulation by explicitly providing for and protecting their right to moderate their users content. It's disingenuous to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation when one law has nothing to say about the matter and at least one contrary law would need to be repealed. We must then look at WHY common carrier laws exist. It is often impractical to have parallel communication infrastructure in the same way as it is impractical to have a parallel system of roads and bridges so it is important that it serve all comers in order to provide for the needs of society. Social media is the exact opposite. They are a dime a dozen and no barrier exists to making another one. If it comes to pass you don't have much of an audience on your alternative network that is a personal problem not an issue for society to solve for you by enforcing your presence where you aren't wanted.

stale2002 5y ago
You just said this "Please cite the exact laws that we ought to apply " Emphasis on the word "ought". And you responded to someone bringing up other laws by saying this "to suppose that existing laws already cover the situation ". Which nobody said. Instead, the other person was directly answering your question, of which specific laws "ought" be applied to social media companies. The implication being, that they do not currently apply now, but should, by changing the law such that they do. > at least one contrary law would need to be repealed You used the word ought. That was your premise. And someone answered your question of what ought happen. So, the implication, is that other contrary law, also ought be changed. I am not sure why this always happens in these types of conversations. People say X is bad, and then someone else comes in and says "Well actually, X is totally legal!". Nobody here said anything about it being illegal. Instead we said that X is bad. And the implication being that we want something to change, such that the bad thing stops. Saying X is legal, is just an end run around, to ignore the original point that was brought up, by talking about the legality, when nobody brought up was is legal in the first place. Yeah, we knows the bad thing is legal. Thats why it is happening. Thats why we are complaining about it. Because it is legal, and happening, and we don't want it to happen, and we want to figure out a way to make it not happen. That why, in my original comment I said that we should "extend" common carrier laws. "Extend" means change. It means that I already know that common carriers laws don't apply, and I want them to apply. By changing those laws. Like, my god. This always happens, and the conversations are so stupid.