What distinguishes a Twitter or Facebook from a phone company? At scale these platforms have become vital to public communication in the same way as certain utilities. Perhaps it would be better if businesses facilitating speech communication had to classify as a common carrier or utility. As a carrier they would get exemption from speech liability and in exchange democracy -- which needs free public discourse -- can function. Any business entity that gains too much power over the public discourse will inevitably gain undue influence over the future of politics. Do we not all lose if that happens?

They want it both ways; to have the legal protections telcos have, and to have a tight control over their platform.

This was touched on in the Congressional hearing with Mr. Zuckerberg, where he avoided the answer:

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TEX): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome. Thank you for being here.

Mr. Zuckerberg, does Facebook consider itself a neutral public forum?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, we consider ourselves to be a platform for all ideas.

CRUZ: Let me ask the question again. Does Facebook consider itself to be a neutral public forum, and representatives of your company are giving conflicting answers on this? Are you a ...

ZUCKERBERG: Well ...

CRUZ: ... First Amendment speaker expressing your views, or are you a neutral public forum allowing everyone to speak?

ZUCKERBERG: Senator, here's how we think about this: I don't believe that — there are certain content that clearly we do not allow, right? Hate speech, terrorist content, nudity, anything that makes people feel unsafe in the community. From that perspective, that's why we generally try to refer to what we do as platform for all ideas ...

CRUZ: Let me try this, because the time is constrained. It's just a simple question. The predicate for Section 230 immunity under the CDA is that you're a neutral public forum. Do you consider yourself a neutral public forum, or are you engaged in political speech, which is your right under the First Amendment.

ZUCKERBERG: Well, senator, our goal is certainly not to engage in political speech. I am not that familiar with the specific legal language of the — the law that you — that you speak to. So I would need to follow up with you on that. I'm just trying to lay out how broadly I think about this.

Common carrier status for phone companies in the U.S. was the price they had to pay for the monopolies they received to run telephone lines on public property or easements on private property, probably dating to earlier with telegraph companies.

Lawyers. There are lots of reasons, but it boils down to them not being like the phone company because they dont want to be. Facebook et al spend millions each year to maintain a very specific legal status across many areas.

So what? If Liberapay was based in the US, they could choose to continue hosting you if they wanted to. In the EU, they don't have that option.

That's a theoretical rather than a real objection since even if your platform doesn't get shut down the US payment processors such as paypal can shut you down and they're very difficult to get around - just ask subscribestar.

This just in: https://twitter.com/michellemalkin/status/110076019755373773...

Twitter sends legal warning for blasphemy. They couldn't find better timing for illustrating the point.

The amount of ‘America! Fuck yea!’ in that thread is cringe inducing. Is there nobody trying to talk about the issue at hand without invoking any of the crazy emotional appeals to American exceptionalism or Muslim hatred?

> The amount of ‘America! Fuck yea!’ in that thread is cringe inducing. Is there nobody trying to talk about the issue at hand without invoking any of the crazy emotional appeals to American exceptionalism

I was literally arguing, that the nice theoretical point of guaranteed free speech is null and void by the current implementation of communication/publishing/payment processing. Where do you find 'America! Fuck yea!' in that? If anything, it is a critique of the current status, which hides ugly reality behind nice theory.

> or Muslim hatred?

Oh boy, another huge can of worms. Muslims still have no idea, what is a hatred in the West. They interchange criticism with hatred, and then they react somewhere between rioting to violence, fueling the vicious circle. They have no idea how Christians were/are pushed around in the West (you can start with the Covington issue recently: they were automatically guilty for being white and Catholics); or don't even consider how they behaved/are behaving towards Christians in the Middle East. Food for thought: ever seen Christian no-go zone in Saudi Arabia? Thought so.

> Muslims still have no idea, what is a hatred in the West.

It’s stunning to read this. Are you really claiming you haven’t seen hatred towards Muslims?

> hey have no idea how Christians were/are pushed around in the West

And there’s where it goes from stunning to laughable. Yes, Christians, truly the most oppressed people in the West.

> It’s stunning to read this. Are you really claiming you haven’t seen hatred towards Muslims?

It is a fraction compared to the hatred from Muslims.

> Yes, Christians, truly the most oppressed people in the West.

Not only in the West; try being a Christian in the Middle East. You know, the countries controlled by Muslims today. Are you going to claim with a straight face, that they are not opressed?

Don’t try to deflect by putting words in my mouth.

> Not only in the West

How?