Hacker News Reader

Comment by whatisthiseven | Hacker News Reader

But what would be the goal of governing them as utilities? This is always said as if it were obvious what would happen once FB gets utility status.

Should FB resume its banning of sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, and ISIS videos when it is a "utility"? And how will the product of FB change as a utility? In what sense is FB a utility other than a very common place people like to go to, like concerts or a sports stadium or something?

What is actually meant when we say "regulate technology companies built around communication as a utility"? How large before you become one? Is any app that has chat or public posting a utility now? What classifies? Is the only goal to make them dumb pipes? What other roles and responsibilities would the government hoist onto FB and require it do?

View on HN

It would allow the government to do what governments do with utilities (say electric utilities or oil pipelines). Prices could be regulated so facebooks profit margin goes from 30-40% to a “just and reasonable” 10%. Moderation of illegal content could stay, but there would be enforceable “non-discrimination” requirements so Republicans could sue Facebook for alleged discrimination. The government could impose GPDR type protections without legislation.

What will happen to New York Times when its running sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, etc? They will get sued.

As soon as we can start suing them for the content they provide the sooner they will find resolution to it.

The same way they will get sued if they censor content that might be deemed socially important.

> What will happen to New York Times when its running sexually explicit, beheading, animal torture, etc? They will get sued.

The NYT isn't a public utility nor a public broadcaster. I'm curious what you think would happen to the New York Times if they were to get sued in your imaginary hypothetical?

I'm curious what you think would happen to the New York Times if they were to get sued in your imaginary hypothetical?

Editors can and have been jailed. They are ultimately personally responsible for what the paper published.

Which contemporary examples (i.e. within the last 50 years) are you referring to? Journalists have been threatened with imprisonment for protecting sources from government subpoena. But the sanction is for refusing a court order, not because of the publication content.

https://archives.cjr.org/opening_shot/opening_shot_july_augu...

And in any case, a publisher is different than a utility or a platform. Social media users are already punished for publishing illegal content (libel, copyright violations, etc). How does making Facebook a "utility" change that?

If it is as your say why would you object to Mark Zuck being personally liable for all content posted on Facebook? If anyone slanders anyone else and his platform publishes and disseminates it, why should he not be considered responsible?

How would a law that holds Zuckerberg responsible in the fashion you describe not be applicable to every website operator and Internet service provider?

It would not be applicable to those who only “censored” illegal material in response to a court order. The difference being whether the operator decides to “censor” content themselves for their own reasons/agenda.

Same as newspaper vs postal service.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com