3 ms·
We could have a threshold at which the nature of the network changes: if a network get more than half of the voting population it gets bound to the same rules a
by makeitdouble 3y ago
We could have a threshold at which the nature of the network changes: if a network get more than half of the voting population it gets bound to the same rules as public carriers.
That would also solve a lot of other issues of network effect and disproportionate reach IHMO.
- deathanatos 3y agoYou're begging the question: your suggestion is the laws under debate, which put thresholds on users/revenue prior to kicking in (see the OP). The amici detail why they think the law in question (and thus, your suggestion) don't practically work. Address or refute the amici's arguments.
- makeitdouble 3y agoSorry, this went right out of my head. You're right. 100 million users looked very low to me, but is basically a third of the US population. I think my gut feeling is that a private network with that much of a reach is an issue in the first place, whatever positions we hold (just assume that network is eventually bought by your worse nightmare). Social media as we know it not existing beyond that line doesn't sound outlandish to me (ideally it becomes the same as our real public spaces: they're so limited that nothing much happens on them except when the cops run in and loudly arrest streakers. Otherwise it just disappears). The idealistic view is to let users decide, yet we're in a situation where there's nowhere left acting as a public space.
- makeitdouble 3y agoTo add to this point: Twitter basically gets this treatment in some of the countries it operates, with gov. emergency alerts going straight into people's apps and the network having to disclose data breaches and unvailability incidents depending on the impact they have. Current owner might be giving me the finger those, but that's a rule in place.