4 ms·

> But there are many social media platforms, and it's easy to start new ones. There is one Twitter. Losing access to Twitter, YouTube, etc. looks like losing a

> But there are many social media platforms, and it's easy to start new ones. There is one Twitter. Losing access to Twitter, YouTube, etc. looks like losing access to a utility to me. And it is not easy to start a new Twitter or YouTube in any meaningful sense. One could just as easily say "ISPs are not utilities or monopolies, you can start your own intranet easily with OSS!"

unethical_ban 4y ago
I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that Twitter is irreplaceable in the same way an ISP is. Twitter is not the Internet.
- mysecretaccount 4y ago
  Although you are likely highly overrating how irreplaceable ISPs are (the situation is bad but I have switched between several in this one home over the years), that's fine. I'm saying that Twitter being a private business does not mean that it should be shielded from any criticism of its speech practices for the same way that ISPs are not similarly exempt.
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    Starting a blog is a lot easier than starting an ISP. I am ignoring the network effects because my metric is reachability and freedom of expression, not the power of the social network.
    - mysecretaccount 4y ago
      If your metric is reachability, it seems like a mistake to ignore network effects. Although you raise a good point: reachability can be mostly extinguished by access to both ISPs and the handful of large social networks.
juve1996 4y ago
I disagree. There are plenty of outlets, multiple TV channels, multiple social networks, newspapers, websites, etc, for Trump to get his message across. > And it is not easy to start a new Twitter or YouTube in any meaningful sense. Apparently it is - Trump started his very own, just like that. didn't even take that long.
- mysecretaccount 4y ago
  My argument has nothing to do with Trump. A massively visible public figure is obviously an outlier when we talk about "limiting speech".
  - juve1996 4y ago
    This is how it has always been, though. Not everyone got a free newspaper in the 1800s. The political leaders of the day had various newspapers that were favorable. The fact and point remains: it's easy to start a social network. Just because it is unpopular/fails doesn't mean it is equivalent to a utility.
    - mysecretaccount 4y ago
      What definition of "public utility" includes Comcast but excludes YouTube?
      - lisper 4y ago
        There are many places where Comcast is the only option for high speed internet. There are no places where YouTube is the only option for watching or publishing videos. But the real defining characteristic that makes an ISP a public utility is that the utility (in the sense of "usefulness") of the internet is strongly bound to its uniqueness, just like the phone system or the road network. Phones and roads and the internet become inherently less useful if there is more than one network. Videos do not become less useful if you have to get some of them from one provider and others from another.

unethical_ban 4y ago

I fundamentally disagree with the assertion that Twitter is irreplaceable in the same way an ISP is. Twitter is not the Internet.

mysecretaccount 4y ago
Although you are likely highly overrating how irreplaceable ISPs are (the situation is bad but I have switched between several in this one home over the years), that's fine. I'm saying that Twitter being a private business does not mean that it should be shielded from any criticism of its speech practices for the same way that ISPs are not similarly exempt.
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Starting a blog is a lot easier than starting an ISP. I am ignoring the network effects because my metric is reachability and freedom of expression, not the power of the social network.
  - mysecretaccount 4y ago
    If your metric is reachability, it seems like a mistake to ignore network effects. Although you raise a good point: reachability can be mostly extinguished by access to both ISPs and the handful of large social networks.

juve1996 4y ago

I disagree. There are plenty of outlets, multiple TV channels, multiple social networks, newspapers, websites, etc, for Trump to get his message across. > And it is not easy to start a new Twitter or YouTube in any meaningful sense. Apparently it is - Trump started his very own, just like that. didn't even take that long.

mysecretaccount 4y ago
My argument has nothing to do with Trump. A massively visible public figure is obviously an outlier when we talk about "limiting speech".
- juve1996 4y ago
  This is how it has always been, though. Not everyone got a free newspaper in the 1800s. The political leaders of the day had various newspapers that were favorable. The fact and point remains: it's easy to start a social network. Just because it is unpopular/fails doesn't mean it is equivalent to a utility.
  - mysecretaccount 4y ago
    What definition of "public utility" includes Comcast but excludes YouTube?
    - lisper 4y ago
      There are many places where Comcast is the only option for high speed internet. There are no places where YouTube is the only option for watching or publishing videos. But the real defining characteristic that makes an ISP a public utility is that the utility (in the sense of "usefulness") of the internet is strongly bound to its uniqueness, just like the phone system or the road network. Phones and roads and the internet become inherently less useful if there is more than one network. Videos do not become less useful if you have to get some of them from one provider and others from another.