4 ms·
It's probably more like a utility at this point and perhaps should be regulated as such. Utilities generally don't interject themselves into people's communicat
by naasking 4y ago
It's probably more like a utility at this point and perhaps should be regulated as such. Utilities generally don't interject themselves into people's communications, and they can't refuse people service except for carefully regulated reasons.
The only publishing-like activity social media sites partake in are the curated news feeds. It's not clear that the service hosting accounts and people's communications as a utility has to be the same as the one providing curated feeds. That's one way to approach this anyway.
- dinom 4y agoSaying that it's a communications utility may be the best argument for regulation. However, I don't think Facebook provides anything essential and so it's much closer to entertainment/media in my mind. I'll continue to listen but they seem to be in the clear for now.
- naasking 4y ago> However, I don't think Facebook provides anything essential I'm speaking to social media in general. Is it not undeniable that if there's a public outcry on social media, that politicians pay attention? Does it not then follow that access to social media is fairly important to having a voice in our politics? Is it not also true that something like 50% of Americans get their news form Facebook? These are only surface level facts, there deeper issues like, for instance, ability to organize political campaigns for a cause without access to social media being severely hampered. I don't know what your threshold for "essential", but access to these platforms sound pretty important to me, and I expect these trends will only increase.