We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11763281 and marked it off-topic.

Not "allowed"? By whom? I'm afraid it's you who is confused. The first amendment doesn't recognize a difference between "editorial content" and non-"editorial content". Comcast could carry only conservative channels without issue.

>Comcast could carry only conservative channels without issue.

This is nonsense. When there is concentration in information distribution, the distributor must allow anyone and everyone equal access to the channel.

According to what, your gut? If you're going to keep insisting that companies "must" do this or that, you need to cite the law that requires them to do so.

According to anti-trust law.

Anti-trust laws are about preventing monopolies, which Facebook is not, and have nothing to do with mandating any kind of fair service for non monopolies. No case can be successfully made calling Facebook a monopoly on social networks, you don't have to use them there are many other options.

Anti trust law does not deal only with monopolies. It is about companies with dominant positions.

Is facebook a company with dominant position?

You're talking about things you don't understand, there is no case anyone can rationally make that Facebook is subject to anti-trust laws. You do not have to use Facebook, there are tons of other social networking sites, Facebook is not using anti-competitive practices to prevent competition.

Anti-trust laws require far more than just being popular to apply and there's nothing in them that applies to Facebook or any other website. Anti-trust laws in the U.S. have never successfully been used against a website because the very notion is absurd.

There are clear methods to decide if a company has dominant position or not. It has nothing to do with whether you can use another one or not. Perhaps you don't have an idea what you are talking about.

You're wrong, simple as that. Being dominant simply is not enough. The FTC couldn't even make a case against Google, a far more dominant company than Facebook. You're just making shit up dude, just stop, there is no case here for anti-trust nor will there be.

>You're wrong, simple as that. Being dominant simply is not enough.

Yeah, I'm gonna bet on me and my law degree for being right about that. Whether Facebook is in a dominant position is for the court to decide.

You on the other hand are a funny... dude. Haha, "dude" he says :)

Great, get back to me when hell freezes over, because that'll happen before Facebook is ever taken down by anti-trust laws.

You frequently break the HN guidelines by being uncivil. This is not ok, and we've warned you many times before. If you keep doing it we're going to ban you, despite the fact that we (and I personally) have bent over backwards to avoid doing that.

> Facebook is a delivery channel. They do not produce editorial content so they are not allowed to have bias

That's simply not true; they're allowed to do anything they want.

Literally no one is suggesting otherwise.

You are literally incorrect as I literally quoted someone suggesting otherwise.

Where?

Try reading the post you replied to.

Yeah, I'm sure there is a congressional probe because they're allowed to do anything they want. I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg felt that he had to adress this himself because clearly they can do anything they want.

There's a congressional probe because congress is a political body putting on a show, nothing more. Facebook is a private company, they have no legal obligation to be unbiased. They may have business reasons for wanting to appear unbiased, so Zuck is simply managing the company image. Websites are not broadcast stations and don't fall under the same rules as television, calling them a delivery channel is meaningless, there's no such thing in the law.