undefined | Better HN

0 pointsolliej5y ago0 comments

Power companies (1) get paid by their users, and (2) are heavily - and sensibly - regulated utilities. They are understood to be companies that operate in a very different business environment from the majority of other businesses. That is what also gives them the ability to place their equipment on other people's private property.

And remember that a power company can cut off power to people if they are intentionally attempting to disrupt the power system, or simply not paying.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

wutbrodo5y ago· 3 in thread

> are heavily - and sensibly - regulated utilities. They are understood to be companies that operate in a very different business environment from the majority of other businesses.

Yes, this is what's under discussion. One side of the debate thinks that the big social media products are critical enough to societal (and especially political) discourse that access should be guaranteed through regulation. It's a rather radical claim, and not one I'm sure I agree with, but it's not self-inconsistent.

> And remember that a power company can cut off power to people if they are intentionally attempting to disrupt the power system, or simply not paying.

Yes, and FB/Twitter can ban people for plenty of reasons that no one considers particularly controversial or critical. As with the power companies, the claim is that doing so for expressing legal-but-unpopular political speech is not conducive to the health of civic discourse and thus democracy.

> Power companies (1) get paid by their users

I don't see what this has to do with anything.

spacemanmatt5y ago

The electric utilities have a government created monopoly, and that truly justifies their obligation to serve everyone. AWS has no such monopoly nor obligation.

If you don't like it, you might be politically aligned with a progressive value: Regulate monopolies not speech.

wutbrodo5y ago

Perhaps you should reread my comments... This is exactly the claim that I'm describing. The claim rests on the premise that these companies are abusing their monopolistic or oligopolistic position over something posited as critical to society. Regulating viewpoint-based discrimination is one proposed remedy (another is removing "monopolies" by eg requiring federation). Nobody in this entire thread is saying that these platforms are legally in the wrong for inconsistently-applied viewpoint-based deplatforming. If they want to ban people for claiming the election was rigged or supporting single-payer healthcare or liking avocados, there's no legal issue at all. The topic under discussion is whether there should be, resting on the premise that these platforms are critical enough to public discourse that something like the utility model is appropriate.

Note that I'm speaking in the voice of those making this claim, not personally espousing the claim. My inclination is away from kneejerk regulation, and I don't think distribution on the Internet fits neatly into the existing categories we use to reason about market power. I'm just shocked at the degree to which so many HNers are gleefully misrepresenting the issue, presumably so they don't have to engage in any critical thinking.

olliejOP5y ago

> > Power companies (1) get paid by their users > I don't see what this has to do with anything.

By and large people don't pay to use social media, so while a person uses power even if the utility company doesn't like it, they are still compensated.

If someone is using social media for reasons/things they don't like, they're now going to take the publicity hit for hosting it, while also paying to host it against their will.

I'd have more sympathy for the argument if the people forcing the hosting of content against the SMCs will had some system for compensating the SMC as well.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse