The government makes laws about how private companies and citizens can act all the time without funding them. You think the government has to fund every auto maker in order to impose emissions standards on them? Or that every company making communications equipment/chips is funded by the government, so that they can impose regulations on what spectrum they can use?
This is a terrible precedent because there is no sane, logical way to define social networks as common carriers, and because Section 230 was specifically written to allow and encourage content moderation.
Social network and communications have nothing to do with each-other? are you reading what you are writing? How is Facebook messenger call different from a phonecall of the 21st century?
It's impossible to use an alternative messenger to communicate with people who use FB messenger. Unlike e-mail providers or phone operators, these newer web services don't have any interoperability, they're closed systems.
To switch from Facebook, a person gonna need to convince all people they communicate with to switch as well - to the same alternative messenger. That's very high cost to switch, borderline impossible to do for many people.
I have at least 7 apps on my phone now that I can use to call someone over an app.
The same argument has been made against regulation since regulation existed. Government should exist in large part to reign in the private market when an obvious public good is at stake.
For corporations that aren't closely held, it's not clear that changes much, though.
[EDIT] Changes much legally, I mean. Ethically—well, again, corporations are a creation of of government, so it seems to me that can come with whatever strings attached the government cares to create (so far as what's ethical, if not what's a good idea), and if the folks running corporations don't like it, they can always... stop running corporations. No one's forcing them to run a corporation, and they can all go do whatever they like with full protection of the US Constitution and all that jazz, if they use their own personal resources and don't hide behind corporate liability shields.
Nah, but I also reckon there's a reason the press is mentioned specifically in that amendment.
I mean, they do in fact already dictate a lot about how both unions and corporations can operate, so yeah, prohibiting endorsement of candidates using union resources doesn't seem entirely crazy to me. Though, again, I'd rather they didn't.
If you’re okay with the government controlling any legal organization do yoh feel the same way about government controlling churches? Advocacy groups?
Well, seizing is rather different than regulating, for one thing, and for another, because most of the time I'd probably think it was a bad idea. I do think it's an option that should be on the table in some circumstances. Just that it's probably wises rarely to use it.
I didn't write that I thought the government ought to interfere with businesses constantly, to extremes, in all sorts of ways. I just think the justification for their ability to do so, if they want, falls out how incorporation works, and what a corporation is.
> If you’re okay with the government controlling any legal organization do yoh feel the same way about government controlling churches? Advocacy groups?
I'd rather they didn't take them over, if that's what your suggesting, but they in fact regulate tons of things about these organizations, including, specifically, speech.
You are kidding right? You don't think the government already controls almost everything about how companies can operate?
They were allowed to have it both ways because the Internet and especially user generated content was new and no one knew where it would go. Now I think there's been plenty of history and time to see it shake out and they should pick an option; either common carrier or publisher but not both.
/ did i use that semicolon right?