4 ms·
> He can, of course, host his videos on his own infrastructure (or those interviewing him can host them on theirs.) Imagine your phone carrier starts listening
by proc0 3y ago
> He can, of course, host his videos on his own infrastructure (or those interviewing him can host them on theirs.)
Imagine your phone carrier starts listening in on your phone calls, and they decide certain ideas are not allowed so they block you from using your phone. Is the response "well you can build your own phone service and talk with people there".
Yes, they're a private company, but large social media companies are large because the public is on them... and they are leveraging this power to censor and shape public opinion. It's arguably a huge amount of power that should be regulated to protect the public from corporate abuse.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago> Is the response "well you can build your own phone service and talk with people there". Are you claiming hosting video on the internet is comparable to creating a telephone network? All RFK Jr has to do is pay a host for some bandwidth and his video is available to all on his website.
- proc0 3y agoIt's not just hosting a video though, it's going to multiple stream channels hosted by other people and having millions of people watch on-demand. YouTube is insanely huge, and there is no comparison. If all social media bans RFK, he might as well retire.
- renewiltord 3y agoWe could give YouTube the same rights that we give other common carriers, but I suspect the antitrust exemptions may make people unhappy. We would gain the ability to force them to be non-discriminatory, though.
- chomp 3y agoWhy do you think a phone call (with implied privacy and the legal framework to back it up) is the same as a company providing you public presence under their brand name, and advertising revenue?
- proc0 3y agoBecause it's all information and mass communication technologies.
- tootie 3y agoThere's a pretty clear dividing line that says neutrality of communication does not extend beyond physical infrastructure. He cannot be denied access to phone lines or internet fiber, but any service running on them is free to set their own TOS and enforce them. In fact, internet really isn't free at all since Trump rolled back net neutrality. No more than he's allowed to walk onto the set of a news broadcast and interrupt the anchors.
- hotpotamus 3y agoI have to admit that the irony of posting that sort of thing on a communications medium where all posts are monitored and some are blocked is always amusing to me.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Imagine your phone carrier starts listening in on your phone calls, There should definitely be a law against that. > and they decide certain ideas are not allowed so they block you from using your phone. Is the response "well you can build your own phone service and talk with people there". Well, yeah, phone service depends on universal end-to-end service; and is regulated accordingly. The internet equivalent isn’t hosting, its ISPs, and the equivalent regulation is net neutrality regulation, which, yeah, we should have federally. If either RFK’s ISP was prohibiting him from hosting videos, or potential viewers ISP’s were stopping them from viewing them, we’d have an access issue analogous to your hypothetical, and I would say it points to the need for net neutrality.