An airline or UPS cannot just say "We don't like your politics so we will not ship your packages."
Social media is extremely similar to all these common carriers in that they are a "content" delivery mechanism. They do not decide what item is in a box or what message is in a phone call, they just distribute the box or phone call from the originator to the consumers. Similarly with social media content the social media company distributes content they have little control over through its distribution network. There is little different from a social media account than a (teletype?) conference telephone call with answering machines.
I disagree with turning platforms into common carriers. As I wrote, I think this misses the issue: a protocol should be a common carrier, but a specific provider has no obligation to host things it doesn’t want to or do not make sense for certain territories.
Cf.:
>An important legal requirement for common carrier as public provider is that it cannot discriminate, that is refuse the service unless there is some compelling reason.
ibid
I suppose you can make "compelling reason" arguments for some things, but the default is carry.
Like, you may as well say "Well there are 'compelling reasons' exceptions so theoretically people can do the exact opposite of what the law says."
Surely you'd agree that ISPs are closer to telephone companies than social media is. So many telephone companies are ISPs.
I love another comment I read on here: "Speech is free, reach isn't." Your ISP shouldn't be able to disconnect you because of your words. But equally you aren't entitled to an audience on MyFaceTubeTwit.
They're low for Google, but prohibitively high for any potential competitors. To me, this supports the argument that YouTube is a monopoly.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/04/cheaper-bandwidth-or...
"Remember YouTube's $2 million-a-month bandwidth bill before the Google acquisition? While it wasn't an overnight transition, apply Google's data center expertise, and this cost drops to about $666,000 a month."
So we have two mental models: (1) ubiquitous social media like YouTube is so large and important that it has become a public service, or (2) ubiquitous social media like YouTube is so large and dominant that it has become a monopoly.
The weird part about the "public service" argument is that it's hard to say I would ever want tax dollars funding "video distribution," while I don't have those qualms around distributing water and electricity. Content feels different to me. But maybe future generations will look back on that and laugh.
The weird part about the monopoly argument is that the barriers to entry for video hosting and distribution are low, and there are many different social media platforms, so the only thing YouTube has a monopoly on is... being YouTube. But perhaps that's enough?
Ultimately I'm more sympathetic to the anti-trust argument, that we should take action to break up mega platforms (although I'm not sure what that action should be).
What has more appeal to me personally is establishing a Constitutional Right to Privacy, then apply that right to ban surveillance capitalism. (US-centric framing, sorry; I would advocate all democracies adopt such a right.)
Such a right would mostly break up social media, with the side effect being an unknown degree of harm to online platforms in general since it's pretty hard to operate the server-client model without tracking your clients. But we could work around that, perhaps with local-first software, or by common-sense provisions like the idea that a store can keep a record of your purchases, it just can't share that record with others.
There's no obvious easy solution here, but this is a big society-shaking problem so I think there's no doubt we will take steps to solve it, the only question is which path will we choose, and how will it work out in the end?