[delinka]

What makes these companies "public utilities" as opposed to others? I don't need Twitter in my life. Nor Google. Definitely not Facebook. And maybe lots of web sites use CloudFlare, but consumers don't interact directly with them.

Maybe applying common carrier status is something that's more palatable, but classifying them as "public utilities" doesn't have to be the mechanism by which CC is applied.

[PurpleBoxDragon]

What counts as a need? Does one need land lines? Electricity? People live off the grid by generating these themselves and people live elsewhere without them at all.

Of course, one could bring a distinction between things that naturally grant a physical monopoly and things that don't, but I think one could make an argument that certain sites have effectively become the new public square and in doing so have a natural monopoly of our attention (or more pedantically a natural cartel).

There is also a natural monopoly of technology. If you have a patent for something, others can't use it unless you let them. Imagine if every major tech corporation aggressively pursued every possible patent claim against any companies trying to offer an alternate space for those banned from the mainstream, would the little company have any greater chance that a new electric company fighting against the entrenched players?

[komali2]

>what counts as need

When access to it is required to be on an even playing field.

Hence internet, yes. Electricity, yes. Phone? Yup.

Facebook? Ehhhh

[Vinnl]

If you want to reach an audience, the vast majority of companies would reach for Facebook and/or Google in a heartbeat. Either they're all wrong, or you're not on an even playing field if you do not use them as an advertiser.

[komali2]

Ok, but you a seven year old still needs the internet to have a level education playing field, and her mom needs it to sort out her taxes and ID applications and look up nutritional information and SNAP information and parks nearby and how to register a car and available jobs at the DMV and...

[PurpleBoxDragon]

You need access to electricity, but there are alternatives such as solar panels or diesel generators. As for phone, more and more people are switching pure to cell phone, of which there are many different options.

By the same measure, depending upon what you are trying to do, it will not be an even playing field if you are removed from Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter, etc.

[komali2]

Cell phone calls are regulated just like land lines... But yes I think data should also be a utility.

Being banned from Facebook/Google/Amazon doesn't prevent you from using the free irs file option, or applying for your ID online, or helping your child with math homework you have no idea how to work on cause you grew up without access to schooling, or etc.

I'm more talking level playing field for your average American, not your average hackernews poster.

[pirocks]

What about LinkedIn. You could argue they are needed for career purposes.

[komali2]

You could, but I think I would win the argument that the internet is a couple of magnitudes more important to finding a job than LinkedIn... Plus all the other reasons the internet is necessary for a level playing field in modern life.

[jimmy1]

These days if you are a local or small to medium business and you aren't on these sites, you practically don't exist. Then again, this censorship isn't averted even if they are regulated by the government. I imagine Alex Jones would also have a hard time getting a 30 second ad on public access televison, despite however much money he was offering.

[zo1]

Personally, I'd apply a completely different property/rule on them. If they're open to the public, and they're used for debate/dissemination of data to willing individuals, then they are not allowed to restrict any speech that doesn't violate any existing laws.

That still leaves plenty of room for the removal/censorship of violent videos, copyright-violating videos, and content with outright calls to violence. Honestly, I've seen a ridiculous amount of the above three examples on all platforms to come to the conclusion that it's both impossible to police such content properly, and that the attempts at classifying content with political speech under the same umbrella is just silencing/censorship rather than it just being a matter of consistency.

[bsder]

> Nor Google. Definitely not Facebook.

While I agree with you on Twitter, these two are less clear.

Google wields vast influence by being search provider, advertising provider, email provider and phone provider simultaneously. Google IS the panopticon for the average user.

Facebook is someone I can't avoid in quite a lot of situations. When government starts using Facebook to coordinate and contact (and it has), Facebook has become more than a mere company.