Most active commenters
  • baq(5)
  • eximius(4)

←back to thread

1061 points danso | 18 comments | | HN request time: 0.008s | source | bottom
Show context
lykahb ◴[] No.23351178[source]
The neutral companies, such as utilities, online hosting or financial providers serve nearly everyone with little objections - they defer to the law rather than any internal policies. The more selective companies such as newspapers and TV channels are expected to restrict who can get published.

By representing itself both as an open platform and as a company with progressive values, Twitter has put itself into an awkward in-between spot and is bound to create such controversies.

replies(7): >>23351236 #>>23351412 #>>23351773 #>>23351797 #>>23352829 #>>23355936 #>>23358514 #
1. riffic ◴[] No.23351797[source]
Twitter has never been a "Utility" in the way that you may be imagining it to be.
replies(2): >>23354918 #>>23355804 #
2. scaredtobeme ◴[] No.23354918[source]
The argument is that it's getting there. It's the leading platform for public debate in the US right now. Journalists spend their days refreshing their Twitter feed, so the effect isn't just in the size of Twitter's platform but its influence.
replies(4): >>23355123 #>>23355198 #>>23355643 #>>23355685 #
3. qchris ◴[] No.23355123[source]
I'd love to be a fly on the wall when a legal team responsible for supporting this narrative has to tackle the issue of regulating the platforms as a public utility, but not the Internet providers that carry them.
4. riffic ◴[] No.23355198[source]
There have been people making these arguments both for and against for a very long time. Even as an example, on this very site:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

I think you'll quickly lean in the opposing view after reviewing those viewpoints, because if Twitter was a utility it would have been declared one at some point in the previous 11 years.

replies(1): >>23356563 #
5. eximius ◴[] No.23355643[source]
Twitter is a plague on public discourse. We'd be better off as a society if it were never invented. If I knew how to put the genie back in the bottle, I would advocate for it.
replies(2): >>23356546 #>>23360049 #
6. ◴[] No.23355685[source]
7. jariel ◴[] No.23355804[source]
Yes, of course - but - it is becoming so.

Twitter and Facebook are starting to approach the threshold of 'public good' wherein at least, there would need to be rules or regulations.

If TW and FB did not actually regulate their content - we would see this exposed much more quickly. Foreign/Russian interference in elections would immediately force Congress to act, there's just too much power.

Aside from the ambiguities of 'how and what to police' we do have the added complexity of the nature of 'large, ostensibly public platforms' managed by private companies.

8. baq ◴[] No.23356546{3}[source]
it's easy enough - make it a paid-for service and regulate - read ban - free versions.

not going to happen because apparently people paying with their attention instead of dollars in manipulative ways is just fine. the argument goes that they can always not read it, but that's a false dichotomy in social networks and why i'd like to see twitter, google and facebook get labeled as utilities.

replies(1): >>23358942 #
9. baq ◴[] No.23356563{3}[source]
how long did it take to break up standard oil? ma bell?
replies(1): >>23356796 #
10. root_axis ◴[] No.23356796{4}[source]
What would it even mean to break up twitter? How would that work?
replies(1): >>23359739 #
11. eximius ◴[] No.23358942{4}[source]
I'd love to see ISPs become utilities, which would be the first step.

Disclaimer: I work for Google, this represents my personal opinion, not that of my employer, etc.

Google, the search engine, I could see being a utility. The rest is iffy. Now, how you disentangle that from the rest of the business... I can either see it being impossible or essentially already done (depends whether you think their existing ads system is biased in some way that regulations/utilit-ification would change - I'm not in ads, I wouldn't know).

Twitter and Facebook as utilities... I mean, I'm not sure I buy it. What kind of utility is it? A utility is something I imagine to be somewhat required by society. A search engine is kind of required in modern society. Facebook and Twitter are incredibly easy to do without.

replies(1): >>23360263 #
12. baq ◴[] No.23359739{5}[source]
i'm just pointing out 11 years is a very short time for regulators to do anything.
replies(1): >>23362879 #
13. sytelus ◴[] No.23360049{3}[source]
It’s absolutely not. I don’t follow anything political, neither Obama nor Trump. Among 1200+ people I follow are all from AI/ML/biotech/space research. Most of them are academics. I throughly enjoy my feed and it’s my go to place to stay up to date as well as some fun nerdy conversations. Tweeter is a hammer, use wisely.
replies(1): >>23366053 #
14. baq ◴[] No.23360263{5}[source]
POTUS is on Twitter. If you want access to his tweets, you absolutely must use Twitter.

Maybe it's a policy problem of the US in particular and politicians in general instead of Twitter/Facebook being an utility. As is, status quo is for me that they're utilities for that single reason.

replies(1): >>23361867 #
15. eximius ◴[] No.23361867{6}[source]
This POTUS is a huge abnormality that I hope can be forgotten to the annals of time and a jail cell. I would hope not to use him as an example of anything that represents normalcy, like accessibility of his tweets.
replies(1): >>23401196 #
16. root_axis ◴[] No.23362879{6}[source]
My point is that websites are fundamentally different from resources you extract from the environment and the eagerness by some to treat them as such is specious.
17. eximius ◴[] No.23366053{4}[source]
I didn't say it ruined your discourse in your niche. I'm not saying Twitter can't be good to any people.

I'm saying that as a tool for public discussion, it is vile.

18. baq ◴[] No.23401196{7}[source]
abnormality or no, unfortunately that's status quo that we're dealing with here. situation changes, we can rethink going back to status quo ante.