Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawaysea | Hacker News Reader

This is one take, but another take is what Section 230 should be, putting aside legal technicalities. We have expectations on how big tech companies should operate, and they are not being met. Facebook is bigger than any country. Twitter is bigger than most. They are the digital public square.

Even if US law permits them to act as they will, it is dangerous for our society to have organizations that are essentially utilities provide a non-neutral platform. It doesn't make a difference if a private company is censoring you - the distinction is just cosmetic. The impact is as real as a government censoring you, since any alternative avenue of speech is significantly less effective and for most intents and purposes, simply doesn't exist.

View on HN

Facebook and Twitter are absolutely not even close to being utilities. Utilities are essential services AND have monopoly power. Facebook and Twitter are neither essential services nor do they have monopoly power (there are a billion other websites you can post on, and the barrier to entry to creating your own website is close to zero).

Being big is not the same as being a monopoly. McDonald's is big, but they are not a monopoly because they have a lot of competitors. Regulating Facebook or Twitter as utilities would be as dumb as regulating Mcdonald's as if it were a utility.

I think that Twitter and Facebook are a lot closer to the United States Postal Service than they are to McDonald's. Imagine getting banned from sending/receiving mail and having your home or business address "delisted" by a private company, and then you get closer to what is going on.

If you get banned from Twitter, you can go to Facebook, just like if you get banned from McDonald's you can go to Burger King.

If you make a habit of shitting in the dining rooms, you'll likely find yourself banned from all the restaurants eventually.

The false equivalence between the right to due process in accessing the world's de-facto global communication platform and eating junk food is honestly sickening to me. The power to say anything you want to anybody in the world has fundamentally different consequences for every society on Earth than the power to slowly poison yourself in the colorfully branded plastic seat of your choosing.

If your problem is the power and reach that these companies have, then fix that problem. Break them up; mandate open communications protocols; create a gov't-owned communications platform. Destroying UGC on the Internet, or passing blatantly unconstitutional laws, isn't going to fix the problem.

> the world's de-facto global communication platform

Sorry, was that Twitter? Or Facebook?

It's kinda hard to argue it's a monopoly when I can't figure out which one you're referring to and you're saying "Twitter and Facebook".

Meanwhile, this is why the USPS isn't a great comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Express_Statutes

If the person you responded to had said "monopoly," your comment would only be pedantic (and maybe bad faith), but they didn't say that - it's easy to argue with a straw man. Don't demean yourself.

The USPS is

1. A government organization

2. An essential service

3. A de facto monopoly in many rural areas that are not profitable for private companies to serve.

Facebook/Twitter are none of these things.

HN: Facebook and Twitter are a stupid, pointless waste of time and you should delete your account and leave those platforms.

Also HN: Facebook and Twitter are essential services and banning people from Facebook and Twitter is a fundamental violation of their human rights.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com