@freepeoplesfreepress @freemo Strongly disagree. Companies are just collectives of people, and they have the right to free speech as well. On their property, they should be able to control the narrative and tone; that's their speech right. Just as it's our right to leave their property if we don't like the way they run things.
Free speech doesn't mean a right to compel others to host your speech.
🇳🇱
To me the issue isnt company vs not-company... it makes no difference is facebook is run by a person or a company really..
To me the line is once the means of communication becomes pervasivce enough that it is an important component in communities and communication.
Facebook is so pervasive that you can almost garuntee to find everyone on there and the vast majority are active. Meaning it is important to communication and interaction in a way thatI feel it resembles phone lines and internet lines at that point.
@freemo @freepeoplesfreepress Eh, I still disagree with that. Fifteen years ago, people said the same thing about MySpace. That these companies are powerful now doesn't mean they're not ultimately ephemeral. Who knows; Elon Musk could buy Meta tomorrow and tank that too.
The internet itself must be free and open like a public street, but individual shops on the internet, both the walmarts and the lemonade stands, need to be free to develop their own culture, and that includes excluding those who choose not to fit into or abide that culture.
Im not sure thats an argument against it... we can say the same about telephone lines or the internet... telegrams used to be pervasive and thus had the protection that utilities like the ISP and phone get today.. but they arent pervasive anymore and thus fell out of those protections.
Same for myspace, when it was pervasive it should have had the protection of a utility due to its critical in operating within a society.. the second it lost popularity and was no longer pervasive that doesnt mean it never deserved the protectiona s a utility, only that it should loose that protection but was still valid at the time.
@freemo @freepeoplesfreepress The difference is that phone lines and internet lines are the roads. MySpace and Facebook are endpoints on those roads.
I don't believe a private service operating on phones should be compelled to host speech any more than a private service hosted on the internet.
I just don't think the size or reach or "pervasiveness" of a company should be a factor in taking away their core rights. That's just punishing success.
common utilities arent defined by if they are roads or endpoints.. they apply to physical spaces to and tons of ideas... a common utility is anything that provides a utility (a common need such as communications) and is common to the community.. So facebeek as a common means of communication is a common utility. The fact that it exists on layer7 rather than layer 1/0 is not all that relevant.
@freemo @freepeoplesfreepress Well, no, the term is "public utility" because these services, being necessary to the public, are *heavily subsidized* by the same governments that heavily regulate them. The government funds them to ensure they are available to everyone.
None of that applies to social media.
It does, however, apply to the internet, because without government funding, the ISPs wouldn't find it profitable enough to run lines to rural areas.
No a public utility is different.. a public utility is just any company at all whose goods/services are availible for purchase to the general public. We are **not** talking about public utilitieis here at all.
What you are probably thinking of is common carriers, and yes we **are** talkingt about something **related** to common carriers, but not a common carrier itself, similar, but we are discussing a common **utility** not a common **carrier**... common means the same in both though,, and "commons" in US law have certain protections, and those differ based ont he type of commons we are talking about, common carriers have different protection than common land (such as sidewalks), and different protection still than common utilities.
@LouisIngenthron The wikipedia definition is a bit too limiting as it implies public utilities are limited to infrastructre, they arent.. goods (like hand delivered coal) also falls under public utility, so it includes goods and services and does not neccesseraly require the maintainince of a public infrastructure (though that is typical).
For example in philly oil is delivered in trucks to home. It is a public company and classified as a public utility... there is no infrastructure, just the sale of the oil.
Here is a better definition:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility#:~:text=A%20public%20utility%20is%20an,heat%2C%20and%20television%20cable%20systems.
"A public utility is an entity that provides goods or services to the general public. "