[Someguywhatever]

Example: You can't shut off somebody's electricity or water because they are a bad person, or have expressed unorthodox opinions. But you can shut off their twitter, their email, their web search, their facebook, their linked-in, stop processing payments for them (potentially cutting them off from their livelihood). You can cut them off from their digital identity and shut them out of the digital "public" in a manner of speaking. When that happens right now today, people hand-wave it away because "X is a private company they can do what they want." Never minding the fact that X has become how almost everybody addresses/interacts with the rest of the public digitally, or how X has ALL their email data, and many important documents etc Getting locked out of these things is not life threatening in the way that no water is, but it can essentially delete somebody from the "public" with almost no recourse.

[Kalium]

Many years ago, the same was true of phone books. The publishers of those were, as far as I am aware, free to delist whomever they pleased for any reason.

I'm not aware phone books being regulated as utilities.

[mc32]

IIRC you had to pay to not appear in the phone book.

[Someguywhatever]

I think the main point is not to get bogged down in whether or not phone books are this or that, or how legacy media relates to the internet era etc.

The point i'm making is not : "Do you sympathize with 'bad guys'?"

it's more: "Would you want whats happening to 'bad guys' to happen to you?".

[jonwachob91]

The utility company will turn off your services for failure to pay, a violation of their ToS. Twitter/Facebook/Google/whomever will suspend your account for violating their terms of service. What's the difference?

[roenxi]

A usual TOS relationship with a utility isn't politically charged.

The important line that is being crossed here is that you can get banned from Twitter/Facebook/Google/whomever for saying something that is not illegal but is in the opinion of the company objectionable.

No utility has the power to disconnect me if I do something they think is objectionable with their service. And that goes to the heart of what people seem to want from "regulating as a utility" (a phrase that is terrifying in its vagueness) - they want freedom to voice unpopular opinions and let those who agree, agree.

[s73v3r_]

But does that extend to advocating harassment? That's what Jones was accused of doing. Does harassment count as an unpopular opinion?

[roenxi]

I have no idea what Jones was doing, not being an InfoWars viewer or following the story closely.

But, I feel under no threat of being disconnected by my water provider because /they think/ that I am harassing someone.

For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly.

The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace, should not be arbitrating what a publisher does. If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public.

[s73v3r_]

"I have no idea what Jones was doing"

Then it seems very bad faith for you to be using him as an example.

"For Jones in particular, I believe the appropriate channels of response are for the person being harassed to: (1) Sue him (2) Respond clearly."

This is simply not true. Further, if you're Twitter, and you have users that are harassing other users, that makes those users less wanting to use your platform. And you have other people that catch wind that Twitter is doing nothing about harassment, and now very few people want to use Twitter.

"The tech majors, who have mounting leaked evidence that their management is politically active in the workplace"

[Citation Needed]

"If they do, then they are publishers themselves, in which case they should be regulated differently and their status as publishers made very public."

I disagree. Asking someone to leave who is harassing other users is not causing themselves to be publishers.

[tomp]

Harassment is not illegal. I believe the parent’s point is that a utility seevice can’t disconnect you because of vague allegations of legal behaviour such as “harassment”.

[GW150914]

Harassment is not illegal.

That’s simply not true.

https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/

[tomp]

Ok, well, Twitter harassment is not illegal. The link you point to only mentions physical harassment (e.g. followig someone, making them reasonably feel unsafe, assaulting them). Harassing speech (and hate speech) is legal (in the US).

[s73v3r_]

Electricity and water are pretty important to be able to live. Being able to rant on Twitter isn't.

[mc32]

The right to vote and the right to free speech are also not essential to life, but we defend both as pillars of a free society.

[spunker540]

People blocked on Twitter are free to host their own websites with their own speech.

I really don’t believe just because Twitter is popular it’s suddenly mandatory that it host any and all content. If hacker news became as popular as twitter could the government suddenly start compelling HN to stop censoring off topic conversation and host any and all posts?

Twitter was created by people to serve a certain purpose and for certain conversations and they are within their rights to control the content they host on their machines and on their site.

[Someguywhatever]

>People blocked on Twitter are free to host their own websites with their own speech.

On paper this is true, but network effects mean you won't be able to interact with the general public UNLESS the general public also moves to your platform as well, which is fairly unlikely.

[mc32]

Let's put it this way, let's say George Soros bought it. He then directed the employees who didn't quit to ban all people who are not leftists.

Or, let's say on the other hand the Koch brothers buy it and again, direct employees who have not quit to ban all non-conservative posters.

Would that be okay because they don't owe it to anyone to be a medium for everyone?

[spunker540]

Yeah that’d be okay.

Someone else could create a more neutral site since there’d certainly be a void to fill.

[mc32]

Then, I'm pretty sure your opinion is in the minority. There would be outrage from either side, if affected, I'm sure.

[root_axis]

Where is the ambiguity? In your example, a private company was purchased by a private individual and now they legally own it... why shouldn't they legally be allowed to do whatever they want with it?

[sangnoir]

Didn't someone make an alt-right twitter and an alt-right Reddit? No-one's complaining - those who don't like it keep away.