4 ms·

Sorry but I flatly don’t respect legal systems that don’t respect property rights. In the Anglo-American tradition and countries which are also Anglo-descended

by SllX 5y ago

Sorry but I flatly don’t respect legal systems that don’t respect property rights. In the Anglo-American tradition and countries which are also Anglo-descended or Anglo-influenced and some other entirely separate legal systems as well, property rights are a big deal. And a core fundamental principle of property rights is the right to exclude.

heurisko 5y ago
The UK legal system, at least, recognises property rights, but offers varying degrees of exclusion. For example, the right to exclude certain classes of people is different renting a room of your house vs. renting a whole apartment. The ability to exclude is again different for service providers. It sometimes also depends on their size. e.g. larger banks are obliged to provide a free basic bank account. If social media monopolies are seen as excluding people without good reason, their monopoly status might attract attention for regulation in the same manner.
- SllX 5y ago
  You’ll find it similar in America but that doesn’t prevent for-cause exclusion if the tenant or account holder damages the property owner or his property. The damages in this case are more abstract, but Facebook arguably has cause to exclude. That said I am much more open to debate the merits of this particular exclusion rather than whether Facebook can exclude at all. I’m also going to go out in a limb and point out that Facebook does not in fact have a social media monopoly, certainly not in the United States which would be the jurisdiction here because in order for that to be true, everything from Twitter, TikTok and iMessage to WeChat and YouTube and Snapchat would simply have to not exist. Social networks tend to have overlapping user bases, with people on both Facebook and Twitter, or Facebook and Snapchat, or some other combination. Nobody has yet convinced me where and how Facebook has any sort of monopoly because they’re too focused on the large user base and that in itself is just not a good argument. Feel free to take a stab at it though.
pixl97 5y ago
Until you become a monopoly, then it becomes more complex.
- SllX 5y ago
  You have to make that case first, and as Facebook goes and as I’ve said repeatedly elsewhere in this thread, I’m not convinced they’re anything of the sort. Prove me wrong, and then go tell the FTC because they’re having a hard time taking Facebook to court over this very issue.

by SllX 5y ago

heurisko 5y ago

The UK legal system, at least, recognises property rights, but offers varying degrees of exclusion. For example, the right to exclude certain classes of people is different renting a room of your house vs. renting a whole apartment. The ability to exclude is again different for service providers. It sometimes also depends on their size. e.g. larger banks are obliged to provide a free basic bank account. If social media monopolies are seen as excluding people without good reason, their monopoly status might attract attention for regulation in the same manner.

SllX 5y ago
You’ll find it similar in America but that doesn’t prevent for-cause exclusion if the tenant or account holder damages the property owner or his property. The damages in this case are more abstract, but Facebook arguably has cause to exclude. That said I am much more open to debate the merits of this particular exclusion rather than whether Facebook can exclude at all. I’m also going to go out in a limb and point out that Facebook does not in fact have a social media monopoly, certainly not in the United States which would be the jurisdiction here because in order for that to be true, everything from Twitter, TikTok and iMessage to WeChat and YouTube and Snapchat would simply have to not exist. Social networks tend to have overlapping user bases, with people on both Facebook and Twitter, or Facebook and Snapchat, or some other combination. Nobody has yet convinced me where and how Facebook has any sort of monopoly because they’re too focused on the large user base and that in itself is just not a good argument. Feel free to take a stab at it though.

pixl97 5y ago

Until you become a monopoly, then it becomes more complex.

SllX 5y ago
You have to make that case first, and as Facebook goes and as I’ve said repeatedly elsewhere in this thread, I’m not convinced they’re anything of the sort. Prove me wrong, and then go tell the FTC because they’re having a hard time taking Facebook to court over this very issue.