4 ms·

It seems like you're working overtime in these comments to deny that the context in which we use the phrase "private company" matters. This is a pretty common u

It seems like you're working overtime in these comments to deny that the context in which we use the phrase "private company" matters. This is a pretty common usage, analogous to "private good" vs. "public good"; surely this discussion on HN is not genuinely the first time you've ever been exposed to it?

lapcat 4y ago
> surely this discussion on HN is not genuinely the first time you've ever been exposed to it? Of course it's not the first time. That's precisely why I'm making a big deal out of it, because I've seen it over and over. I'm suggesting that there's a kind of unwarranted ideology behind the usage that doesn't accurately reflect the legal reality, and gives the impression that companies have unlimited rights when in fact they're strictly regulated in countless ways. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31609113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31609113 We could talk about Section 230, for example, which is obviously important with regard to Twitter and whether it can operate. It feels to me like people are "working overtime" to handwave about "government owned companies", of which nobody has given any examples. Nor have they explained why a government owned company wouldn't have the right to block any links that the government wanted to block. If anything, a government owned company would probably be treated as exempt from some rules that apply to "private" companies.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Aside from all of the additional accounting/reporting/etc. burdens placed on publicly-traded companies, there are no differences in legal requirements between publicly-traded and privately-held companies. > Nor have they explained why a government owned company wouldn't have the right to block any links that the government wanted to block. It's the First Amendment. The USPS can't refuse to deliver a postcard because they don't like what it says, for example. If the government ran a user-generated content platform (which they shouldn't, and probably never will) they would be bound by the same requirements.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    > Aside from all of the additional accounting/reporting/etc. burdens placed on publicly-traded companies, there are no differences in legal requirements between publicly-traded and privately-held companies. Not sure why you mention this when everyone in the comments here insists that publicly-traded and privately-held companies are both included under "private company" in this discussion. > The USPS can't refuse to deliver a postcard because they don't like what it says, for example. Well, it actually must refuse if the receiver doesn't like it what it says. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_v._United_States_Post_Office_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_v._United_States_Post_Of... "the sender does not have a constitutional right to send unwanted material into someone's home"
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      Obviously the receiver rejecting something is entirely different from the USPS rejecting something. How do you not see that, and why are you doing this?
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > Obviously the receiver rejecting something is entirely different from the USPS rejecting something. How is the difference relevant? Also, the USPS can refuse to deliver child porn. Indeed, Twitter itself must remove child porn. > why are you doing this? I think that "theoretical government run social network" is a total red herring. Everyone in the comments is trying to tell me that "private company" is somehow a useful phrase to distinguish from "government run company", and I think the phrase and the distinction is doing zero work. I'm just following along with the game and trying to explain that the government/non-government distinction doesn't even help the argument. The fact that Twitter is not run by the government is irrelevant, and saying that it's a "private company" doesn't magically exempt it from government regulation that may affect what it can and can't do. It's kind of funny, when a big corporation does something terrible, half of the time the defense is "a private company can do whatever it wants", and the other half of the time the defense is "the lawyers made them do it", which is the exact opposite and contradictory idea.

lapcat 4y ago

> surely this discussion on HN is not genuinely the first time you've ever been exposed to it? Of course it's not the first time. That's precisely why I'm making a big deal out of it, because I've seen it over and over. I'm suggesting that there's a kind of unwarranted ideology behind the usage that doesn't accurately reflect the legal reality, and gives the impression that companies have unlimited rights when in fact they're strictly regulated in countless ways. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31609113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31609113 We could talk about Section 230, for example, which is obviously important with regard to Twitter and whether it can operate. It feels to me like people are "working overtime" to handwave about "government owned companies", of which nobody has given any examples. Nor have they explained why a government owned company wouldn't have the right to block any links that the government wanted to block. If anything, a government owned company would probably be treated as exempt from some rules that apply to "private" companies.

jaywalk 4y ago
Aside from all of the additional accounting/reporting/etc. burdens placed on publicly-traded companies, there are no differences in legal requirements between publicly-traded and privately-held companies. > Nor have they explained why a government owned company wouldn't have the right to block any links that the government wanted to block. It's the First Amendment. The USPS can't refuse to deliver a postcard because they don't like what it says, for example. If the government ran a user-generated content platform (which they shouldn't, and probably never will) they would be bound by the same requirements.
- lapcat 4y ago
  > Aside from all of the additional accounting/reporting/etc. burdens placed on publicly-traded companies, there are no differences in legal requirements between publicly-traded and privately-held companies. Not sure why you mention this when everyone in the comments here insists that publicly-traded and privately-held companies are both included under "private company" in this discussion. > The USPS can't refuse to deliver a postcard because they don't like what it says, for example. Well, it actually must refuse if the receiver doesn't like it what it says. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_v._United_States_Post_Office_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowan_v._United_States_Post_Of... "the sender does not have a constitutional right to send unwanted material into someone's home"
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    Obviously the receiver rejecting something is entirely different from the USPS rejecting something. How do you not see that, and why are you doing this?
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > Obviously the receiver rejecting something is entirely different from the USPS rejecting something. How is the difference relevant? Also, the USPS can refuse to deliver child porn. Indeed, Twitter itself must remove child porn. > why are you doing this? I think that "theoretical government run social network" is a total red herring. Everyone in the comments is trying to tell me that "private company" is somehow a useful phrase to distinguish from "government run company", and I think the phrase and the distinction is doing zero work. I'm just following along with the game and trying to explain that the government/non-government distinction doesn't even help the argument. The fact that Twitter is not run by the government is irrelevant, and saying that it's a "private company" doesn't magically exempt it from government regulation that may affect what it can and can't do. It's kind of funny, when a big corporation does something terrible, half of the time the defense is "a private company can do whatever it wants", and the other half of the time the defense is "the lawyers made them do it", which is the exact opposite and contradictory idea.