4 ms·

There is tons of precedent for something like this. It's called Common Carrier law. This applies to phone networks, railroads, airlines, pipelines, electric,

There is tons of precedent for something like this. It's called Common Carrier law. This applies to phone networks, railroads, airlines, pipelines, electric, water, sewer, and trash utilities, internet service providers, etc. The basic idea is that if a carrier is at least a quasi-monopoly, they have to provide service to anyone unless they have a "good reason." Of course what these reasons might be will vary depending on the business, but would generally not include being accused of a crime. The electric company is not allowed to cut off your power if you are accused (or even convicted) of sexual assault, as long as you pay your bill on time and don't vandalize their equipment etc.

coldpie 3y ago
No matter how much you want it to be, YouTube is not a utility. Antitrust law is the right remedy here. Solve this through market competition by breaking up the big companies, not speech stifling regulations.
singleshot_ 3y ago
All of the entities you mentioned exclusive of internet platforms have in common that they transport goods or passengers for a fee and are open to the public. Internet platforms are not common carriers despite how badly some want to thwart private property rights.
- cameldrv 3y ago
  Telephone services and internet services in some states are considered common carriers (net neutrality). In the case of an oligopoly like the streaming video market, it makes sense to force large players to make their platforms available on a non-discriminatory basis. I agree that breaking up YouTube would also solve the problem though.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    Right, because telcos and isps carry passengers or goods for a fee and they are open to the public. That’s why they are common carriers. Where you miss the mark is that it does not, in fact, make any sense whatsoever and indeed would be illegal to commandeer someone’s computer and force it to do things the owner does not want it to do. This is quite foundational to our private property regime.
    - cameldrv 3y ago
      Telcos and ISPs carry packets from place to place. YouTube carries videos from place to place. That's a fairly fine distinction. The ISPs computers are being "commandeered" in exactly the same way.
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        Telcos and isps have terms of service and contractual provisions that allow for common carriage. They clearly and intentionally seek this status to protect themselves from liability rooted in the carriage. (Edit: in exchange for additional duties based on the special relationship formed, if I recall correctly). Purveyors of coherent speech products derive similar but different immunity from cda section 230, with terms of service that define the relationship as distinctly not content neutral. Accordingly there is a very differentiated line: the common carriage of goods. Common carriers do it but internet platforms do not. Stepping back a moment, I stated before that the fee element of common carriage was not present in internet platforms but of course you can buy movies on YouTube so this is not as universally true as I said. On the other hand, try posting a snuff video to YouTube and you will see exactly why it is not a common carrier. As I understand it, the argument is that if a web site gets to be sufficiently systemically critical to (society? Democracy?) that it should not be allowed to control its speech product. This would go a long way toward making every website 4chan, which is not an optimal outcome. However I’m curious if I’m missing something. Is the goal here to deny, for example, LinkedIn the ability to constrain you from posting pornography? Or to constrain stack overflow from allowing you to post poor quality answers?
        cameldrv 3y ago
        Companies don't choose to be common carriers if they can still be a monopoly/oligopoly without it. The reason common carrier regulations were adopted was because companies that had monopolies (some natural, some not), would use those monopolies in ways that were seen to be unfair competition. All else equal, any company would rather pick and choose their customers rather than be forced to serve customers that they'd rather not for one reason or another.
gdulli 3y ago
If Google was compelled to keep arbitrary content monetized, the first thing they'd do is improve the tooling for advertisers to opt out of objectionable content in a more automated way. You're just pushing the problem to a different level. It's easy to make a case that Google has to carry content, but forcing advertisers to spend money sponsoring it?
- cameldrv 3y ago
  Yes but I'm pushing the problem to a level where there is competition. There are many advertisers. If even a large group of advertisers doesn't want to advertise on Russell Brand's videos, fine. Probably he would get significantly lower ad rates than other more widely acceptable content, but that's between him and the advertisers -- there's no middleman that refuses to let him make any money at all. Frankly, I think supporting content through advertising stinks, but that's another matter.

coldpie 3y ago

No matter how much you want it to be, YouTube is not a utility. Antitrust law is the right remedy here. Solve this through market competition by breaking up the big companies, not speech stifling regulations.

singleshot_ 3y ago

All of the entities you mentioned exclusive of internet platforms have in common that they transport goods or passengers for a fee and are open to the public. Internet platforms are not common carriers despite how badly some want to thwart private property rights.

cameldrv 3y ago
Telephone services and internet services in some states are considered common carriers (net neutrality). In the case of an oligopoly like the streaming video market, it makes sense to force large players to make their platforms available on a non-discriminatory basis. I agree that breaking up YouTube would also solve the problem though.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  Right, because telcos and isps carry passengers or goods for a fee and they are open to the public. That’s why they are common carriers. Where you miss the mark is that it does not, in fact, make any sense whatsoever and indeed would be illegal to commandeer someone’s computer and force it to do things the owner does not want it to do. This is quite foundational to our private property regime.
  - cameldrv 3y ago
    Telcos and ISPs carry packets from place to place. YouTube carries videos from place to place. That's a fairly fine distinction. The ISPs computers are being "commandeered" in exactly the same way.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      Telcos and isps have terms of service and contractual provisions that allow for common carriage. They clearly and intentionally seek this status to protect themselves from liability rooted in the carriage. (Edit: in exchange for additional duties based on the special relationship formed, if I recall correctly). Purveyors of coherent speech products derive similar but different immunity from cda section 230, with terms of service that define the relationship as distinctly not content neutral. Accordingly there is a very differentiated line: the common carriage of goods. Common carriers do it but internet platforms do not. Stepping back a moment, I stated before that the fee element of common carriage was not present in internet platforms but of course you can buy movies on YouTube so this is not as universally true as I said. On the other hand, try posting a snuff video to YouTube and you will see exactly why it is not a common carrier. As I understand it, the argument is that if a web site gets to be sufficiently systemically critical to (society? Democracy?) that it should not be allowed to control its speech product. This would go a long way toward making every website 4chan, which is not an optimal outcome. However I’m curious if I’m missing something. Is the goal here to deny, for example, LinkedIn the ability to constrain you from posting pornography? Or to constrain stack overflow from allowing you to post poor quality answers?
      - cameldrv 3y ago
        Companies don't choose to be common carriers if they can still be a monopoly/oligopoly without it. The reason common carrier regulations were adopted was because companies that had monopolies (some natural, some not), would use those monopolies in ways that were seen to be unfair competition. All else equal, any company would rather pick and choose their customers rather than be forced to serve customers that they'd rather not for one reason or another.

gdulli 3y ago

If Google was compelled to keep arbitrary content monetized, the first thing they'd do is improve the tooling for advertisers to opt out of objectionable content in a more automated way. You're just pushing the problem to a different level. It's easy to make a case that Google has to carry content, but forcing advertisers to spend money sponsoring it?

cameldrv 3y ago
Yes but I'm pushing the problem to a level where there is competition. There are many advertisers. If even a large group of advertisers doesn't want to advertise on Russell Brand's videos, fine. Probably he would get significantly lower ad rates than other more widely acceptable content, but that's between him and the advertisers -- there's no middleman that refuses to let him make any money at all. Frankly, I think supporting content through advertising stinks, but that's another matter.