Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by manfredo 2791 days ago
It'd more like Ford trying to ban people from putting Hilary or Trump bumper stickers on their cars. In your scenario, an individual had their property vandalized. That is not comparable to platforms censoring certain views.
1 comments
charlesism 2791 days ago 

    > That is not comparable to platforms 
    > censoring certain views.
Historically, it has been. If someone had sent a letter to The Pennsylvania Chronicle, containing a recipe for baking a turd pie, I don't think Ben Franklin would have felt the need to print it.

Facebook, Twitter, Google... they're the ones footing the bill to host their users' content.

link
manfredo 2791 days ago
The Pennsylvania Chronicle isn't a platform. It's a publisher. Readers' letters getting published is the exception, not the norm.

The ideas discussed here would be more like a telecoms provider specifically refusing to do business with someone because they disagree with their politics.

link
mundo 2791 days ago
What's the difference? AFAICT the idea that when a website gets big enough it becomes de facto infrastructure and gets governed by different rules is pure imagination.
link
basch 2791 days ago
There are rules that treat telecoms differently precisely because there is opportunity for market failure.

The argument is, that some software companies have crossed into becoming a telecom like entity. A market failure exists, where consumers may need protecting.

Obviously, current laws dont treat facebook, google, or microsoft that way.

Do we feel the same way about gmail/outlook starting to censor emails that google/microsoft dont approve of?

link