5 ms·

Electric utilities were granted monopoly status in order the treat them as utilities, prior to the 1930s they were just private companies that were wildly succe

Electric utilities were granted monopoly status in order the treat them as utilities, prior to the 1930s they were just private companies that were wildly successful, and didn’t want to expand into unprofitable rural markets. That’s not the dynamic occurring today, social media is available in even the most rural setting, albeit in a reduced form to support low bandwidth. Do we really want to allow Facebook and Twitter monopoly status and then treat them as defacto government entities? Will that result in better services? I do not think so. As we’ve seen with TikTok’s rise, competition within the space leads to better outcomes, not treating social media companies as “utilities”. Social media companies are not in any way comparable to a sewer system, an electric grid, or a phone line network.

AlexandrB 4y ago
> As we’ve seen with TikTok’s rise, competition within the space leads to better outcomes I disagree. The whole social media industry is rotten and needs a dose of... something... to bring it back to sanity. Strict limits on user data collection and algorithmic "feeds" would be a good start IMHO. Otherwise the same patterns repeat themselves, where the most rage-inducing content gets spread the furthest.
- justaman 4y ago
  I think bringing back the adventurous side of the internet is important. Back in the day if you wanted to find information about a specific topic you had to search(not google search) for it. In doing so, you weren't inundated with more and more information that starts relevant, but quickly devolves into whats trending to drive DAUs and add clicks.
- XorNot 4y ago
  The HN front page is an algorithmic feed. Where and how do you draw that line?
  - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
    This is important. I dont know where the line is, but we should agree that a line is needed. People are saying a line is not necessary. That is at the core, the problem. We need to agree that these companies -by accident or otherwise- have become a common good, similar to a "utility" Take a similar example: at some point a company stops being a company...and becomes a monopoly. Where is that line? We dont know. However its important we recognize private companies operating as monopolies are not in the best interests of society. Private companies operating as common goods providers should be subject to additional rules. That is what we should agree on. Then let others define what that is.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      If you "do something" about algorithmic feeds then that law is going to be written by politicians or their advisers. If you, engaged user of a tech site, a developers forum, have no idea what that should look like, then why would the "something" from politicians work out better?
      - specialist 4y ago
        Which laws, regulations, rules are not written by politicians?
  - specialist 4y ago
    Incentives. No ads. No engagement (paperclip) maximizers.
radu_floricica 4y ago
History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Electric power, water, sewage, phone, internet access... each has its own specific history, times 170 countries. Not all identical, but the outcomes are pretty similar. SM is clearly different from that and very much still in flux, and overly regulating it would be more of a burden than an advantage. Some amount of regulation may help though, especially designed to encourage diversity of ideas. But mostly I wanted to counter the meme that "it's not censorship if it's a private company". Yes it is, when you have only one twitter and a handful of SM companies in total. It's not the ownership that matters, it's the ubiquity and the effect.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Some amount of regulation may help though, especially designed to encourage diversity of ideas I wonder if limited Section 512 reform is the answer [1]. Remove it for social media platforms over a certain size that sell ads. Create a safe harbour if they form an independent appeals commission, like the one Facebook did; but with teeth on enforcement, tightly-scoped but binding rulemaking powers, and rules about how its members are chosen. Company can flag and ban. Users can appeal. Commission can go to the courts to enforce its will or force discovery. (Maybe throw in a couple commission members elected by users, I don’t know.) [1] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyright-safe-harbor/ https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyr...
- anamax 4y ago
  FWIW, there is a precedent regarding shopping malls and the like. They are clearly private property, yet they must provide access for political activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
- btreecat 4y ago
  >History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Electric power, water, sewage, phone, internet access... each has its own specific history, times 170 countries. Not all identical, but the outcomes are pretty similar. They all require physical infrastructure to every house, to provide service capacity. As such, we don't want 7 different companies for each, laying 7 different sewer systems and 7 different electric grids. When the service is virtual, the same infrastructure limits don't materialize in the same way. We don't need to run new ISP lines to bring on a new platform. So while ISP are certainly more like classic utilities, websites and social platforms just aren't. >But mostly I wanted to counter the meme that "it's not censorship if it's a private company". Yes it is, when you have only one twitter and a handful of SM companies in total. It's not the ownership that matters, it's the ubiquity and the effect. Corporate censorship isn't a "free speech" problem. SM companies just aren't enough like a utility, they are not actually required to function in society (unlike electricity, and running water). Did you learn nothing from the battle over NetNeutrality?
tolmasky 4y ago
There are some apt comparisons of social media to sewers, but not in their utility…
Phenomenit 4y ago
SM is not a utility but the ability to disseminate information to huge number of peoples is and it's just as important to regulate as electricity and sewage. Moderation of information is the fourth arm of the government and needs to be developed if we're ever going to be able to trust each other again. It has never been an issue before because the means of communication have always been limited but modern electronic communication has changed all that and it's clear that we can't exist in this wild west phase anymore. SM had eroded the trust in institutions and between people and groups. It had put all of us in bubbles just to sell ads. Informational and cognitive hygiene must be recognized and taught to everyone so people can defend themselves and take care of what they hold dear and true.

AlexandrB 4y ago

> As we’ve seen with TikTok’s rise, competition within the space leads to better outcomes I disagree. The whole social media industry is rotten and needs a dose of... something... to bring it back to sanity. Strict limits on user data collection and algorithmic "feeds" would be a good start IMHO. Otherwise the same patterns repeat themselves, where the most rage-inducing content gets spread the furthest.

justaman 4y ago
I think bringing back the adventurous side of the internet is important. Back in the day if you wanted to find information about a specific topic you had to search(not google search) for it. In doing so, you weren't inundated with more and more information that starts relevant, but quickly devolves into whats trending to drive DAUs and add clicks.
XorNot 4y ago
The HN front page is an algorithmic feed. Where and how do you draw that line?
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  This is important. I dont know where the line is, but we should agree that a line is needed. People are saying a line is not necessary. That is at the core, the problem. We need to agree that these companies -by accident or otherwise- have become a common good, similar to a "utility" Take a similar example: at some point a company stops being a company...and becomes a monopoly. Where is that line? We dont know. However its important we recognize private companies operating as monopolies are not in the best interests of society. Private companies operating as common goods providers should be subject to additional rules. That is what we should agree on. Then let others define what that is.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    If you "do something" about algorithmic feeds then that law is going to be written by politicians or their advisers. If you, engaged user of a tech site, a developers forum, have no idea what that should look like, then why would the "something" from politicians work out better?
    - specialist 4y ago
      Which laws, regulations, rules are not written by politicians?
- specialist 4y ago
  Incentives. No ads. No engagement (paperclip) maximizers.

radu_floricica 4y ago

History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Electric power, water, sewage, phone, internet access... each has its own specific history, times 170 countries. Not all identical, but the outcomes are pretty similar. SM is clearly different from that and very much still in flux, and overly regulating it would be more of a burden than an advantage. Some amount of regulation may help though, especially designed to encourage diversity of ideas. But mostly I wanted to counter the meme that "it's not censorship if it's a private company". Yes it is, when you have only one twitter and a handful of SM companies in total. It's not the ownership that matters, it's the ubiquity and the effect.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Some amount of regulation may help though, especially designed to encourage diversity of ideas I wonder if limited Section 512 reform is the answer [1]. Remove it for social media platforms over a certain size that sell ads. Create a safe harbour if they form an independent appeals commission, like the one Facebook did; but with teeth on enforcement, tightly-scoped but binding rulemaking powers, and rules about how its members are chosen. Company can flag and ban. Users can appeal. Commission can go to the courts to enforce its will or force discovery. (Maybe throw in a couple commission members elected by users, I don’t know.) [1] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyright-safe-harbor/ https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/copyright/copyr...
anamax 4y ago
FWIW, there is a precedent regarding shopping malls and the like. They are clearly private property, yet they must provide access for political activity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._R...
btreecat 4y ago
>History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. Electric power, water, sewage, phone, internet access... each has its own specific history, times 170 countries. Not all identical, but the outcomes are pretty similar. They all require physical infrastructure to every house, to provide service capacity. As such, we don't want 7 different companies for each, laying 7 different sewer systems and 7 different electric grids. When the service is virtual, the same infrastructure limits don't materialize in the same way. We don't need to run new ISP lines to bring on a new platform. So while ISP are certainly more like classic utilities, websites and social platforms just aren't. >But mostly I wanted to counter the meme that "it's not censorship if it's a private company". Yes it is, when you have only one twitter and a handful of SM companies in total. It's not the ownership that matters, it's the ubiquity and the effect. Corporate censorship isn't a "free speech" problem. SM companies just aren't enough like a utility, they are not actually required to function in society (unlike electricity, and running water). Did you learn nothing from the battle over NetNeutrality?

tolmasky 4y ago

There are some apt comparisons of social media to sewers, but not in their utility…

Phenomenit 4y ago

SM is not a utility but the ability to disseminate information to huge number of peoples is and it's just as important to regulate as electricity and sewage. Moderation of information is the fourth arm of the government and needs to be developed if we're ever going to be able to trust each other again. It has never been an issue before because the means of communication have always been limited but modern electronic communication has changed all that and it's clear that we can't exist in this wild west phase anymore. SM had eroded the trust in institutions and between people and groups. It had put all of us in bubbles just to sell ads. Informational and cognitive hygiene must be recognized and taught to everyone so people can defend themselves and take care of what they hold dear and true.