This is also the first idea I've seen that tries to deal with the free speech problem on the internet. A lot of platforms today apply varying amounts of censorship (like youtube's copyright takedown mess), but there isn't really anything we can do because it's a privately owned platform and they can do whatever they want. But when they control such a large amount of mindshare, we end up putting the idea of free speech at risk.

Perhaps the platform utility designation will let us enforce a kind of "content neutrality" instead.

Is this a good idea? Giving "fair time" to not only YouTube malcontents, but also actively bad actors i.e. state funded shills?

I don't see how this could be implemented to the best interest of the USA without "censorship" being involved at some point.

As usual, the problem is who gets to decide "the best interests of the USA" in practice.

How is it any different than letting them use the mail? You can't combine the First Amendment with censorship.

Just because something has a lot of mindshare doesn't mean you have any business silencing their choices. People who don't agree with the policies of private companies like Facebook can simply not use it. Try Gab if you want a private company that is anti-censorship.

It seems like you are just repeating the same specious point that OP was refuting.

Right now, it feels like companies like Google are mostly silencing hate speech, violent extremists, and pornography, but there is no guarantee that their censorship will remain that way in the future. In a not-so-hypothetical future where a single private company has taken almost whole control over online media and starts imposing heavy censorship over non-offensive speech, are we going to continue saying "it's a private company, and if you don't like it, you can just share your opinions on this platform that nobody reads"?

Presumably if they blocked speech that most people actually wanted to see, they'd leave to one of the billion other messaging tools. You can still say anything you want over email.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm going to do. Your opinion has no right to exist on any platform. Don't like it? You can move off of it. Bring other people to a platform that goes by rules you like. I don't use Gab, I am not interested in it, but it exists and has rules you may prefer if this hypothetical situation were to occur.

I like diverse viewpoints being allowed. It is unacceptable, however, to be so entitled as to try to force companies not to censor whatever they feel like.

Would you be similarly comfortable with your cell provider censoring your calls and/or texts? After all, it's unacceptable to force them not to censor whatever they feel like.

Is it equally unacceptable to be entitled to try to force companies to hire/fire who they don't want?

What about forcing companies to offer housing to people they do or don't like?

And what about offering loans? Should companies be forced to offer loans to people, even if they don't want to?

We're talking about protected classes here, and I don't think it's equally unacceptable. On a fundamental level, inherent characteristics (race) are very different from ideas (speech). So I think you can be in favor of anti-discrimination on basis of who you are, while also being against beliefs becoming a protected class.

Though, just so you know where I'm coming from, in my ideal world it would be strong social and business pressures that enforced the idea of protected classes, not regulation. I'd support any competitor which was more ethical, but complex issue.

The heritability of certain political preferences are higher than the heritability of homosexuality (a protected class).

I used to think like you do, but what changed my mind was that I tried to consider whether a hands-off approach will maximize total freedom.

If, by regulating the way people do business, we can increase total freedom in the world, I think that it's a worthwhile exchange. The way we do business is already regulated, and is one of the powers that we explicitly grant the government in the constitution.

The way I see it, forcing social platforms to accept free speech is really just a commercial regulation, and not a speech regulation. After all, we all understand that this post doesn't reflect the opinions of YC, and thus forcing YC to accept this post doesn't restrict anyone's freedom of speech.

The flaw in this logic is that in today's online world if you want to participate in the relevant discourse, where everyone else is participating, it's Facebook/Twitter/Reddit/etc...

This is like saying if you don't like the debate happening in your city hall or town square, go to the small gathering in the woods to have your conversations.. where no one will hear you, and what you say will have no impact.

I know this the analogy is flawed because there is no "public space" on the Internet.. The places we have chosen to hold our public discourse online are all privately owned..

It's a challenging problem and "go somewhere else" is not a viable solution because it marginalizes and suppresses unpopular opinions or minority groups..

> Companies with an annual global revenue of $25 billion or more ...

Hiding revenue is something multi-national corporations do really well.

If I ran a company that had a platform as described, and we were approaching the 25bn mark, I'd find ways to make sure we never crossed that line.

Losing IP to what would become a 'public utility' would discourage me from ever trying to develop beyond the 24.9bn mark.

That works to some degree, but there's some point at where it is more beneficial to just spin the platform into its own company and let it be regulated while all your other services can operate freely without having to hide most of their revenue.

Sure, some of your IP moves to a new company that is more restricted in how it can operate. But at least your marketplace doesn't hold back everything else your company is doing.

PG&E is fine with this model and they don't have to give up their IP or profits. Essentially it would turn Google and the other tech platforms into legal monopolies. That being said, I think this is probably the best way we can keep getting awesome technology from Google while at least having some government oversight. I kinda feel like were getting to the point in human evolution where we need giant giant groups of people to work together to solve really big technical problems. While problematic on many levels, a government sanctioned and regulated monopoly around google could potentially accomplish those things.

>If I ran a company that had a platform as described, and we were approaching the 25bn mark, I'd find ways to make sure we never crossed that line.

I feel like shareholders wouldn't be very happy with this

>Hiding revenue is something multi-national corporations do really well.

I thought it was profits that were easily hidden. Hiding revenue seems like it would be very difficult.

> Losing IP to what would become a 'public utility' would discourage me from ever trying to develop beyond the 24.9bn mark.

(it wouldn't be a public utility but) I feel like that's kind of the point? Encourage dozens of smaller (if multi-billion counts as "small") businesses to thrive rather than one 25bn+ business. And if you do want to go big, you have to do it in a way that lifts up significantly smaller businesses.

Ok, works as intended.

Separating Google Search and Google's ad business would kill both. Advertising subsidizes search, search supports advertising.

Google isn’t only search and ads. Their adverse is worse in smaller markets like Maps and Cloud, where they use revenue from another market to commoditize and build a moat in another — thereby unfairly competing.

Elizabeth Warren specifically mentions separating Search from Ads as something she'd do to Google. Most likely because that's as deeply as her target audience is going to think about it.

Gut reaction: I feel like Android would not survive Google being forced to remove all their apps from the Google play store.

Android is perhaps the closest in comparison to Microsoft/Internet Explorer. Spin off Android into its own company, including the Play Store. There would be nothing stopping Google from keeping their apps in the Play Store, but they would sit on the same level as competing mapping and search apps, and users would choose which one to use instead of have it preinstalled.

You need to remember that android's customers aren't the end users of the phones, its customers are the OEMs. Spinning off android into its own company separate from Google wouldn't mean the end user gets a preference of which mapping or search app to install, it means the company selling the phone (either the phone brand or the cell network) gets to choose.

The end user would get a choice by buying a specific phone, though, no? The Android device market, at least, isn't heavily monopolized, and there are many options, including devices that are explicitly advertised as open and cruft-free.

You have the option as an Android provider to use android and provide your own services OR ship the device with Google Play services. Amazon for example does the former.

I actually think Android is a really bad example precisely because all the useful google apps ARE separate from the OS. Its just that what people think of as android is actually mostly Play Services now.

And tbh - most people would still probably download google chrome, google maps, google docs etc - it would just level the playing field

I would download all those, but there's also a lot of Google stuff pre-installed on my phone that I wouldn't have downloaded: the Google search bar, Google assistant, Google music, Hangouts, Google+, just to name a few.

Man, that persistent white toolbar at the bottom of the screen is really annoying when I want to check my phone in the middle of the night.

You can install a different home app. I use Nova Launcher, which lets you customize the search bar or remove it entirely.

OK but Android is a loss leader for Google's search business. If you spin off Android and Android is no longer subsidized by the search business doesnt that either

1. Raise prices for customers since now someone has to pay for Android development/upkeep/progress, or

2. Starve and kill Android and leave customers with just one major app store (Apple)?

That would be great. Android has a competition-destroying business model: giving away the OS for free, while subsidizing OS development with ad revenue from unrelated services. It killed companies like Symbian who just sold you an OS in exchange for a license fee, without trying to marry that to services you can't easily switch away from because they have all your data.

So basically big companies will no longer have any reason to work on open source projects anymore if they can't fund them with "unrelated services?" You can head over to github, clone the AOSP tree, and do whatever the heck you want with it. Separately, Google has developed the Play ecosystem, and several of its own apps for Android. If you want you phone to have that stuff, you tell Google and you join the Open Handset Alliance or whatever its called now. If you don't, you start from AOSP (as does Amazon, for example) and don't give Google the time of day. So they give away a massive boost to anyone who wants to make a mobile device, and somehow that's a bad thing?

Possibly true. But the direct exchange of money for a product or service creates a salutory incentive structure. And unfortunately, the rise of open source has been associated with the rise of indirect monetization models that aren't as beneficial, especially in the consumer space.

Painting this as an unintended consequence of open source is really interesting. The rise of free open source alternatives to proprietary products has encouraged companies to provide products free, but these companies aren't going to be motivated to provide these products without some avenue for profit.

Defining by dollar amount is never a good idea due to inflation/market appreciation. There are so many laws and regulations that are pinned to a dollar amount that get more and more out of date each year.

It should always be something that's a better true absolute measure, for example market penetration.

Isn't data collection by the ISPs/phone companies a bigger issue? Consumers truly have no choice there. Whereas you could get by without FAANG, though it'd be inconvenient.