vel0city explains (among other things) the "natural monopoly" aspect of historical common carriers very well in other comments [1][2] on this page. Another maj

vel0city explains (among other things) the "natural monopoly" aspect of historical common carriers very well in other comments [1][2] on this page. Another major difference between historical common carriers and social media networks is that the moment the former has delivered a specific load of cargo/data the relationship between the carrier and the user ends with respect to that load. As Mike Masnick puts it [3]: > The delivery from point A to point B is the key point here. Railroads, telegraphs, telephone systems are all in that simple business — taking people, cargo, data (voice) from point A to point B — and then having no further ongoing relationship with you. > That’s just not the case for social media. Social media, from the very beginning, was about hosting content that you put up. It’s not transient, it’s perpetual. That, alone, makes a huge difference, especially with regards to the 1st Amendment’s freedom of association. It’s one thing to say you have to transmit someone’s speech from here to there and then have no more to do with it, but it’s something else entirely to say “you must host this person’s speech forever.” (I highly recommend reading the rest of [3].) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46953835 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46953835 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46954283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46954283 [3] Why It Makes No Sense To Call Websites 'Common Carriers' - https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/25/why-it-makes-no-sense-to-call-websites-common-carriers/ https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/25/why-it-makes-no-sense-to...