4 ms·

You generally can't force a party to enter into a contract with another party that they don't want to.

by treyd 2y ago

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
Utilities and carriers can’t just pick and choose customers totally. For example, your electrical utility cannot deny your service based on your political speech or profession or whatever. Even if they are privately owned. Personally, I think companies above a certain size should not be able to deny customers because they are effectively like public agencies or utility services due to their size. Banks, big tech, large social media platforms should be regulated like utilities in my opinion.
- text0404 2y ago
  microsoft's enterprise AI tool isn't a utility though, and they're not banning police on political or moral grounds.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > microsoft's enterprise AI tool isn't a utility though It’s part of an infrastructure as a service platform, which is why I view it as utility. But I also am saying we need to broaden what we call a utility for the modern world. Not having access to large platforms (like social media) or centralized services (banking) or large companies (which have lots of market share and are one of a few options) is very damaging. What are your thoughts on that? > and they're not banning police on political or moral grounds. How do you know this? This seems like it would almost certainly be the result of pressure from political groups.
    - pessimizer 2y ago
      > It’s part of an infrastructure as a service platform, which is why I view it as utility. They haven't securely broadened it to the internet or mobile phone service, and you want them to broaden it to individual privately-produced software packages. So the police can't be refused as a customer.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- kube-system 2y ago
  Of all the things that could be considered a public utility, Azure OpenAI Service ranks somewhere between Cabbage Patch dolls and Crystal Pepsi. Not only can everyone live without it, almost everyone on the planet does live without it.
- atonse 2y ago
  But utilities also have those rules because they are granted de-facto monopolies in their geographic areas. It's not like I can get electricity from another provider if there is literally only one in my area. And what they're providing (water, sewage, electricity) is deemed essential. Even with banks, if one bank rejects me, I can (hypothetically) go to another one down the street.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Companies can be damaging and anti competitive even if they aren’t total monopolies. Being an oligopoly or having a significant portion of market share is enough. Keep in mind many of these companies have more users than most national governments do - and they have soft power on a similar scale. Another angle is network effects - social media companies face reduced competition due to this and so they too should be regulated above a certain size since there isn’t enough competition or choice there, because the value of access to those particular platforms is very high due to their size. > Even with banks, if one bank rejects me, I can (hypothetically) go to another one down the street. What if they all reject you though? For example what if all banks decide they are better off debanking someone to stay in the good side of politicians who might punish them otherwise (like via regulation)? Some of these services are fundamental and should be forced to provide service no matter what.
- singleshot_ 2y ago
  When it comes to wanting big companies to follow rules (a noble pursuit) many wish that common carrier status could be imposed on a business. But remember why common carrier status exists. Imagine I rob a stagecoach and lie low until the next day, when I catch a train to the next town over. Is the train engineer my accomplice in the robbery? Or my accessory after the fact? Is the train company? He and it might be, except that the train company “holds itself out” as a transporter of goods and services open to all. In exchange, the law grants the company that holds itself out as a carrier for all the freedom not to worry about whether carriage is a criminal act for the customer. But without holding one’s self out as a carrier for all, there is no common carrier status. You cannot hold out a company as sufficiently large; they must hold themselves out as wanting this status. When I see people clamor for social media platforms, I get doubly confused, because not only have these companies never held themselves out as common carriers, they would take nothing they do not already have (under 230) from doing so.
  - everforward 2y ago
    > Is the train engineer my accomplice in the robbery? Or my accessory after the fact? Is the train company? No, even without common carrier status. Being an accessory to a crime is much more narrow than "unknowingly conveyed a criminal during routine operation of a transportation company". That broad of an interpretation makes everything being an accessory to the crime. The federal government created and backs the bills the thief stole, so they helped. The city built the roads they used, so they help. Old Mister McCollem down the lane stopped walking so the thief didn't run them over, which might have helped. > But without holding one’s self out as a carrier for all, there is no common carrier status. You cannot hold out a company as sufficiently large; they must hold themselves out as wanting this status. This is not true, you're misconstruing the difference between companies that had mens rea in transporting illegal goods and companies that don't. Common carrier is an involuntary status. The government decides whether a company is or is not a common carrier and is obligated to provide services to anyone that asks (basically). Common carriers are almost categorically excluded from liability for the goods they transport because they are effectively incapable of mens rea. They did not choose to transport those goods, therefore they could not have had criminal intent in making a choice to provide service. Companies that are not common carriers _do_ have a choice when deciding whether to provide service, and thus are capable of having criminal intent when making that decision. Inversely, companies that choose to act like a common carrier _do not_ receive the same protections as an actual common carrier. Their decision to provide service to everyone without asking questions is still a decision, and can meet the mens rea bar. The most well known cases I can think of here would be The Pirate Bay and Silk Roads. Both behave as if they were common carriers and will sell/convey almost whatever you want without questions. They do not receive immunity for not asking questions, because the intent of that policy is to allow (encourage, really) illegal usage. On the flip side, the Post Office/UPS have indemnity for conveying drugs bought on Silk Roads because they actually are common carriers. They didn't decide to just not check packages, they are legally prohibited from invasive package checking and denying service to customers they find sketchy (would need a fact check on the prohibition of checking packages; I believe there are limits on what they can check, but I don't know offhand what they are).
- whaleofatw2022 2y ago
  I think in this case, a bigger factor would be this is a 'we will not attest to accuracy in court'. As an odd sort of comparison, this is why you can't just take a magic 8 ball into the courtroom and shake it; 'for amusement only'

You generally can't force a party to enter into a contract with another party that they don't want to.

by treyd 2y ago

You generally can't force a party to enter into a contract with another party that they don't want to.

Utilities and carriers can’t just pick and choose customers totally. For example, your electrical utility cannot deny your service based on your political speech or profession or whatever. Even if they are privately owned. Personally, I think companies above a certain size should not be able to deny customers because they are effectively like public agencies or utility services due to their size. Banks, big tech, large social media platforms should be regulated like utilities in my opinion.

text0404 2y ago
microsoft's enterprise AI tool isn't a utility though, and they're not banning police on political or moral grounds.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > microsoft's enterprise AI tool isn't a utility though It’s part of an infrastructure as a service platform, which is why I view it as utility. But I also am saying we need to broaden what we call a utility for the modern world. Not having access to large platforms (like social media) or centralized services (banking) or large companies (which have lots of market share and are one of a few options) is very damaging. What are your thoughts on that? > and they're not banning police on political or moral grounds. How do you know this? This seems like it would almost certainly be the result of pressure from political groups.
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    > It’s part of an infrastructure as a service platform, which is why I view it as utility. They haven't securely broadened it to the internet or mobile phone service, and you want them to broaden it to individual privately-produced software packages. So the police can't be refused as a customer.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kube-system 2y ago
Of all the things that could be considered a public utility, Azure OpenAI Service ranks somewhere between Cabbage Patch dolls and Crystal Pepsi. Not only can everyone live without it, almost everyone on the planet does live without it.
atonse 2y ago
But utilities also have those rules because they are granted de-facto monopolies in their geographic areas. It's not like I can get electricity from another provider if there is literally only one in my area. And what they're providing (water, sewage, electricity) is deemed essential. Even with banks, if one bank rejects me, I can (hypothetically) go to another one down the street.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Companies can be damaging and anti competitive even if they aren’t total monopolies. Being an oligopoly or having a significant portion of market share is enough. Keep in mind many of these companies have more users than most national governments do - and they have soft power on a similar scale. Another angle is network effects - social media companies face reduced competition due to this and so they too should be regulated above a certain size since there isn’t enough competition or choice there, because the value of access to those particular platforms is very high due to their size. > Even with banks, if one bank rejects me, I can (hypothetically) go to another one down the street. What if they all reject you though? For example what if all banks decide they are better off debanking someone to stay in the good side of politicians who might punish them otherwise (like via regulation)? Some of these services are fundamental and should be forced to provide service no matter what.
singleshot_ 2y ago
When it comes to wanting big companies to follow rules (a noble pursuit) many wish that common carrier status could be imposed on a business. But remember why common carrier status exists. Imagine I rob a stagecoach and lie low until the next day, when I catch a train to the next town over. Is the train engineer my accomplice in the robbery? Or my accessory after the fact? Is the train company? He and it might be, except that the train company “holds itself out” as a transporter of goods and services open to all. In exchange, the law grants the company that holds itself out as a carrier for all the freedom not to worry about whether carriage is a criminal act for the customer. But without holding one’s self out as a carrier for all, there is no common carrier status. You cannot hold out a company as sufficiently large; they must hold themselves out as wanting this status. When I see people clamor for social media platforms, I get doubly confused, because not only have these companies never held themselves out as common carriers, they would take nothing they do not already have (under 230) from doing so.
- everforward 2y ago
  > Is the train engineer my accomplice in the robbery? Or my accessory after the fact? Is the train company? No, even without common carrier status. Being an accessory to a crime is much more narrow than "unknowingly conveyed a criminal during routine operation of a transportation company". That broad of an interpretation makes everything being an accessory to the crime. The federal government created and backs the bills the thief stole, so they helped. The city built the roads they used, so they help. Old Mister McCollem down the lane stopped walking so the thief didn't run them over, which might have helped. > But without holding one’s self out as a carrier for all, there is no common carrier status. You cannot hold out a company as sufficiently large; they must hold themselves out as wanting this status. This is not true, you're misconstruing the difference between companies that had mens rea in transporting illegal goods and companies that don't. Common carrier is an involuntary status. The government decides whether a company is or is not a common carrier and is obligated to provide services to anyone that asks (basically). Common carriers are almost categorically excluded from liability for the goods they transport because they are effectively incapable of mens rea. They did not choose to transport those goods, therefore they could not have had criminal intent in making a choice to provide service. Companies that are not common carriers _do_ have a choice when deciding whether to provide service, and thus are capable of having criminal intent when making that decision. Inversely, companies that choose to act like a common carrier _do not_ receive the same protections as an actual common carrier. Their decision to provide service to everyone without asking questions is still a decision, and can meet the mens rea bar. The most well known cases I can think of here would be The Pirate Bay and Silk Roads. Both behave as if they were common carriers and will sell/convey almost whatever you want without questions. They do not receive immunity for not asking questions, because the intent of that policy is to allow (encourage, really) illegal usage. On the flip side, the Post Office/UPS have indemnity for conveying drugs bought on Silk Roads because they actually are common carriers. They didn't decide to just not check packages, they are legally prohibited from invasive package checking and denying service to customers they find sketchy (would need a fact check on the prohibition of checking packages; I believe there are limits on what they can check, but I don't know offhand what they are).
whaleofatw2022 2y ago
I think in this case, a bigger factor would be this is a 'we will not attest to accuracy in court'. As an odd sort of comparison, this is why you can't just take a magic 8 ball into the courtroom and shake it; 'for amusement only'