Hacker News Reader

Comment by dntbnmpls | Hacker News Reader

> There's literally no way you can read the 1st amendment and think it should apply to non government entities. It specifically mentions congress only.

It already applies to non government entities. Telephone companies can't deny you service because they don't like you or what you say. Your power and gas company can't deny you service because they don't like you or what you say.

Trump can't even block people on twitter ( a private company ).

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/09/fede...

View on HN

> Telephone companies can't deny you service because they don't like you or what you say

This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with their licenses for public airwaves.

> This has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with their licenses for public airwaves.

Public airwaves? This applied during the landline days and it had more to do with the idea of monopolies/utilites/trusts.

Either way, it debunks your point that non-government entities are all allowed to censor...

The protections the telephone companies have are based on their desire to remain common carrier status, and not being considered curators or providers of the content they carry.

It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too.

> It's not they can't censor, it's that if they do then their legal status changes in a way they do not wish it too.

In other words, they can't censor as they are. A private company cannot censor.

>they can't censor as they are.

Yes

>A private company cannot censor

No. They are common carriers. Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not.

> No.

But you said "Yes" two lines above.

> They are common carriers.

These common carriers are private companies, not public companies. They aren't owned by the government. They are owned by private shareholders. AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc are private companies or non government entities.

> Twitter and the vast majority of other companies are not.

I never claimed twitter and the vast majority of companies are. I only responded to the assertion that all "non government entities" can censor. I was providing proof that some non government entities cannot censor.

They can indeed censor, I think what the prior poster was saying is that if they choose to censor, their regulation changes.

That's not how it works. They can't censor. It's why they don't. Can you show me anyone who has been #Canceled from their phone service? Ever wonder why nobody demanded Harvey Weinstein or Trump lose their phone numbers? Because they can't do it.

If AT&T wants to censor, they have to go find other business. They can't be in the telephone business and censor. It's a lawsuit and possible jail for the execs involved.

People are so desperate to justify censorship that they'll make up nonsense. I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to believe all the pro-censorship nonsense in my thread. The only explanation is bias once again forcing people to make up and accept nonsense.

His point was that the 1st amendment applies only to Congress. There are other laws that apply to other entities, but currently no law prevents Twitter from censoring.

Is Facebook / Twitter / the internet in general infrastructure in a similar way to telephony and electricity?

There is an argument to be had there.

I'm sure there are other nuances, but I'd be willing to say that it depends on if their news feed is 'editorialized' or not (ie, they choose what I see, or I choose what I see ...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com