People have been writing this, but I'm curious what they mean, as there is no single legal "Utility" classification that could be put on something like google or facebook.
Is there a specific legal approach people are talking about or is it just the commonly understood meaning of "utility" they're referring to?
I'm not aware phone books being regulated as utilities.
The point i'm making is not : "Do you sympathize with 'bad guys'?"
it's more: "Would you want whats happening to 'bad guys' to happen to you?".
The important line that is being crossed here is that you can get banned from Twitter/Facebook/Google/whomever for saying something that is not illegal but is in the opinion of the company objectionable.
No utility has the power to disconnect me if I do something they think is objectionable with their service. And that goes to the heart of what people seem to want from "regulating as a utility" (a phrase that is terrifying in its vagueness) - they want freedom to voice unpopular opinions and let those who agree, agree.
But, I feel under no threat of being disconnected by my water provider because /they think/ that I am harassing someone.
For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly.
The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace, should not be arbitrating what a publisher does. If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public.
Then it seems very bad faith for you to be using him as an example.
"For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly."
This is simply not true. Further, if you're Twitter, and you have users that are harassing other users, that makes those users less wanting to use your platform. And you have other people that catch wind that Twitter is doing nothing about harassment, and now very few people want to use Twitter.
"The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace"
[Citation Needed]
"If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public."
I disagree. Asking someone to leave who is harassing other users is not causing themselves to be publishers.
That’s simply not true.
In fact it specifically mentions anonymous communications in a variety of forms.
Either (a) communicates with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or (b) causes a communication to be initiated by mechanical or electronic means or otherwise with a person, anonymously or otherwise, by telephone, or by telegraph, mail or any other form of written communication, in a manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm; or Makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication;...
I can only recommend a more in-depth reading for you. At the very least you owe it to yourself to have basic knowledge of the laws in question before you go about declaring what’s legal and illegal.
I really don’t believe just because Twitter is popular it’s suddenly mandatory that it host any and all content. If hacker news became as popular as twitter could the government suddenly start compelling HN to stop censoring off topic conversation and host any and all posts?
Twitter was created by people to serve a certain purpose and for certain conversations and they are within their rights to control the content they host on their machines and on their site.
On paper this is true, but network effects mean you won't be able to interact with the general public UNLESS the general public also moves to your platform as well, which is fairly unlikely.
Or, let's say on the other hand the Koch brothers buy it and again, direct employees who have not quit to ban all non-conservative posters.
Would that be okay because they don't owe it to anyone to be a medium for everyone?
Someone else could create a more neutral site since there’d certainly be a void to fill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
"Net neutrality is the principle that [providers] treat all data on the Internet equally, and not discriminate"
"In a "dumb network", the endpoints are thought to be where the intelligence lies, and as such, proponents argue that the network should leave the management and operation of communications and data transfer to the end users, not a government bureau or Internet company."
"Supporters of net neutrality... want to ensure that [companies] cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without a court order."
I don't think it would count as a duplicate internet any more than archive.org would.
Edit: and why is curation relevant to the question of whether there should be a common crawl that can be accessed by all, a publicly hosted mirror of the web that can be used to create competing search engines?
On a side note, I find it very ironic that a community who so passionately embrace net neutrality are so quick to cry 1A and liberty when it comes to political censorship and bias by the huge internet companies.
And to think, it's the Republican Party that's been anchoring for removing any pretense of net neutrality.
But now it's Bad(TM). Or at least Unfair(TM).
So long as they are not regulated as such, then I don’t think the gov should get involved. But then again, that raises the question, should google be allowed lawfully to, say, supress all topics around Atheism, or Christmas or Hanukah or Russian meddling, if their management and ownership changed to one even more manipulative?