undefined | Better HN

0 pointskrapp4y ago0 comments

>As time goes on I am less and less supportive of the notion that private companies can do as they please on the basis that they are private companies.

There is no such notion - private companies have to obey the laws of the land like anyone else.

Platforms like Twitter have the right to ban politicians on the basis of the rights of private property and freedom of speech and association. The same rights that allow restaurants to eject people for "no shoes, no shirt, no service" and allow radio stations and newspapers to choose what and what not to publish, and me to tell Jehovah's Witnesses off. I don't know why this suddenly makes people feel uncomfortable, when these rights, and the ability of private enterprise to exercise them, have been part of the basis of Western liberal democracies for hundreds of years.

The inverse of this would be to give carte-blanche ownership and rights over all property to politicians - including social media platforms, that supersede the rights and desires of the platform owners. That it would be illegal to ban any politician from any private property under any circumstances.

I believe it's a good thing that the President of the United States has no more right to act the fool on Twitter than you or I should. Twitter is not, and should not be, the sole nexus for all global political and cultural communication. It's a microblogging platform, ffs, the only reason it "matters" at all is because one specific paranoiac President didn't trust his own media apparatus.

It's a convenience. It's certainly useful, but it isn't necessary.

0 comments

BitwiseFool4y ago

>"The inverse of this would be to give carte-blanche ownership and rights over all property to politicians"

Why would the alternative be carte-blanche over all forms of property? The government already forces telephone companies not to discriminate based on speech. Broadcasters must follow restrictions and allow government messages to be played under certain circumstances. The Net Neutrality folks are fighting so that Comcast cannot determine which parts of the internet I am allowed to visit using their service.

What would the harm be in making a law along the lines of "A digital service used primarily for communication with over twenty million members must allow sitting members of congress, the supreme court, the president, and members of the cabinet to disseminate any communication they so desire during their tenure."

The government controls what citizens can do with their private property all the time, and in just about every facet of our lives. I see no harm in making laws depending on the scale of the company.

krappOP4y ago

>Why would the alternative be carte-blanche over all forms of property?

Because the rights of property, free speech and association that apply to social media platforms apply everywhere, so altering those rights for social media platforms also alters them everywhere.

>The government already forces telephone companies not to discriminate based on speech. Broadcasters must follow restrictions and allow government messages to be played under certain circumstances.

Social media platforms are not common carriers. They don't have monopoly over free speech or the dissemination of information, nor has any platform ever claimed to act neutrally. The entire business model of social media is curation and algorithmic recommendation of content - the exact opposite of what a common carrier does.

Also, broadcasters are regulated because broadcast spectrum space is a limited resource. Cable broadcasters, for instance, aren't subject to the same regulations.

>What would the harm be in making a law along the lines of "A digital service used primarily for communication with over twenty million members must allow sitting members of congress, the supreme court, the president, and members of the cabinet to disseminate any communication they so desire during their tenure."

The harm is that the First Amendment prevents the government from abridging the people's freedom of speech, and a fundamental part of freedom of speech is freedom from compelled speech. Forcing all social media platforms which meet some arbitrary (and arbitrarily changeable) limit on membership to carry speech by the government is compelled speech, and an abridgement on freedom of speech, and thus voids, or at least weakens, the First Amendment. Which is a bad thing.

Governments already have their own media infrastructure. Members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the President of the US have Twitter accounts (remember, what was banned was Trump's personal account, @POTUS is still perfectly fine.) The solution here is for the government to either comply with the rules set by social media platforms like everyone else, or else create their own platform.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse