8 ms·

This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. If you don't like wha

• protomyth 4y ago
  Private companies are regulated all the time. Look up the rules for any utility or communications company. They banned politicians, so that's going to get laws passed.
  • ProAm 4y ago
    They are given massive subsidies from the government to do so. Social networks have nothing to do with infrastructure where as utilities and communications do.
    • ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      > Social networks have nothing to do with infrastructure where as utilities and communications do Social network and communications have nothing to do with each-other? are you reading what you are writing? How is Facebook messenger call different from a phonecall of the 21st century?
      • triceratops 4y ago
        I only have one or 2 choices of phone carriers with a high cost to switch. I have a multitude of alternatives to FB Messenger (which I don't even use) with very low cost to switch.
        • Const-me 4y ago
          You can use any phone carrier you want, one of these two real ones, or one of the hundreds of VoIP providers. Regardless on your choice, you can still call the people you want, regardless on their carrier. The only difference is cost per minute, which is typically low cost to switch. It's impossible to use an alternative messenger to communicate with people who use FB messenger. Unlike e-mail providers or phone operators, these newer web services don't have any interoperability, they're closed systems. To switch from Facebook, a person gonna need to convince all people they communicate with to switch as well - to the same alternative messenger. That's very high cost to switch, borderline impossible to do for many people.
          • triceratops 4y ago
            Why? You can't call them on the phone, or text them? Or email them? There's plenty of other open systems around.
      • ProAm 4y ago
        Communication is infrastructure. A social network is not. Pretty straight forward.
      • scarface74 4y ago
        A phone call is enabled by easements on public land. Facebook Messenger is just one of many messaging programs. I bet you right now Google has 5 in the works. I have at least 7 apps on my phone now that I can use to call someone over an app.
  • triceratops 4y ago
    So why aren't ISPs regulated like common carriers?
    • protomyth 4y ago
      Before 2018 they were, and now they are listed as Title I information services. There is a bit of a court fight over the ability of state regulators to impose rules. I would imagine that they could be moved back if they cause trouble for politicians.
      • triceratops 4y ago
        That's an open admission that none of these laws are about principles or "freedom of speech". They're openly political, and they should be upfront about that.
        • protomyth 4y ago
          Every law is politically motivated. "Freedom of Speech" is a politically motivated.
    • mr_toad 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v....
  • scarface74 4y ago
    Utilities and communication companies are natural monopoles because they require government easements on private property and a license to limited airways
• ejb999 4y ago
  >>These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them You are kidding right? You don't think the government already controls almost everything about how companies can operate?
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• chasd00 4y ago
  social networks straddle the fence. They want to be common carriers when it comes to being responsible for the content published on their platforms and then they want to be publishers when it comes to deciding what content is curated, promoted, and publicized on their platform. They were allowed to have it both ways because the Internet and especially user generated content was new and no one knew where it would go. Now I think there's been plenty of history and time to see it shake out and they should pick an option; either common carrier or publisher but not both. / did i use that semicolon right?
• nonethewiser 4y ago
  The government already regulates publishers. When you make decisions about what to feature and what to exclude you are a publisher.
• yamtaddle 4y ago
  A corporation is a creation of government. Why shouldn't they be able to regulate them any way they think best? Which isn't necessarily to say this is a good idea, but... of course government should be able to tell companies how to operate.
  • NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    Except in ways that are constitutionally prohibited, right?
    • yamtaddle 4y ago
      Yeah, sure. For corporations that aren't closely held, it's not clear that changes much, though. [EDIT] Changes much legally, I mean. Ethically—well, again, corporations are a creation of of government, so it seems to me that can come with whatever strings attached the government cares to create (so far as what's ethical, if not what's a good idea), and if the folks running corporations don't like it, they can always... stop running corporations. No one's forcing them to run a corporation, and they can all go do whatever they like with full protection of the US Constitution and all that jazz, if they use their own personal resources and don't hide behind corporate liability shields.
      • NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
        Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers (whether persons natural or juridical) from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates?
        • yamtaddle 4y ago
          > Surely you don't think it would be legal for Congress to pass a law preventing newspaper publishers from, for example, endorsing presidential candidates? Nah, but I also reckon there's a reason the press is mentioned specifically in that amendment.
• eddof13 4y ago
  nah. my bank, electric company, telephone carrier, internet carrier, and social media platforms (effectively the public square) should have no choice but to carry me regardless of my opinions
• klyrs 4y ago
  On the other hand, stripping corporations of their speech, reversing Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, would be great. But that isn't the real objective behind this law.
• danaris 4y ago
  Your conclusion ("this is a terrible precedent") is correct, but the way you get there makes no sense. The government makes laws about how private companies and citizens can act all the time without funding them. You think the government has to fund every auto maker in order to impose emissions standards on them? Or that every company making communications equipment/chips is funded by the government, so that they can impose regulations on what spectrum they can use? This is a terrible precedent because there is no sane, logical way to define social networks as common carriers, and because Section 230 was specifically written to allow and encourage content moderation.
• ramesh31 4y ago
  >This would be a terrible precedent. These are private companies, who is the government to tell them how to operate without funding them. The same argument has been made against regulation since regulation existed. Government should exist in large part to reign in the private market when an obvious public good is at stake.