I see people asking this question, let me flip it around: where is the guarantee (implicit or explicit) that in a free society we are owed a channel to broadcast a message?
I think when you set out to become ubiquitous, gobble up competitors in your space and advertise yourself in order to gain more followers to cement your network effects.
It’s like denying someone electricity. Sure we can do without. But society is now set up such that not allowing someone to use electricity is beyond the pale.
Social media has made themselves indispensable and as such they owe access to whomever they’ve extended access to, unless the users violate local laws.
>>I think when you set out to become ubiquitous, gobble up competitors in your space and advertise yourself in order to gain more followers to cement your network effects.
By that logic, MS Windows licenses should be free and Wal-mart should be forced to stay in every location it killed off all the competitors. Maybe home depot and ikea too?
But MS windows isn't free, and box stores close locations. TBH, I find these 'mostly monopolies' a lot more disturbing then social media companies.
If Walmart colluded with all the other major grocery stories to ban anyone who wants to raise their taxes, for example, then I would find that pretty horrifying as well and would advocate for laws to prevent that.
Fortunately, we aren't seeing such actions yet, so we don't really have a large need for such laws. But yes, if such actions happened, then that would be bad and we should make that illegal.
I was hoping to find middle ground in this conversation but if you truly believe the ability to tweet or post on Facebook is indispensable, I’m not sure we will.
It won't let me comment on your longer reply below. I just wanted to say, this:
>>there are more ways to deliver a message than there ever have been in the history of mankind
really resonates with me - its a lot easier now then it ever was with "letters to the editors" or "public access cable" or whatever other medium you pick. Even getting a ham license and taking your message global is easier then before.
It may not be exactly indispensable now, but they want to become such. In that light I think in ten years when they are your bank and whatever else, I think they will be indispensable.
In some parts of the United States being denied utilities can (and does) lead to death as a result of exposure. I don't believe comparing this to deplatforming from the internet is a good faith argument.
> It may not be exactly indispensable now, but they want to become such.
So they're not now, but they want to be, so we need to treat them like they are? That's like saying we should apply monopoly laws to every company in a market because they're trying to grow. When Twitter has a monopoly on the distribution of speech, I'll agree with you. In the meantime, even without social media, there are more ways to deliver a message than there ever have been in the history of mankind.
As has been mentioned over and over the last few days, freedom of speech means you have the right to say it, not the right to broadcast it.
> In that light I think in ten years when they are your bank and whatever else
I say this semi-sarcastically, but when I can't spend my money because I've been deplatformed from twitter, I screwed up more than them.
> In some parts of the United States being denied utilities can (and does) lead to death as a result of exposure. I don't believe comparing this to deplatforming from the internet is a good faith argument.
Without getting into the point of the conversation[1], taking the most extreme interpretation of someone else's words and argue against that would be the no good faith argument in this case, IMO. The HN guidelines encourage to steelman the other person's point and argue against that; you seem to have done the opposite.
In other words, the other person didn't argue that removing access to social media was akin to killing you (like it would be for a few people if they didn't have access to electricity), but that it would be a huge inconvenience (like it would be for most people if they lost access to electricity).
[1]: I'm starting to not see the point in discussing the merits of free speech or what constitutes free speech or censorship. I believe free speech is fundamental, and for that reason it's anyone's prerogative to think otherwise. Getting into that discussion at all is also a bit ironic.
> I think when you set out to become ubiquitous, gobble up competitors in your space and advertise yourself in order to gain more followers to cement your network effects.
You mean, be successful?
> It’s like denying someone electricity.
Like electricity? That's a laughable assertion.
Thankfully you are completely mistaken about what the law is.
