I see a big difference between, for example, FB censoring comments and Amazon denying web hosting services. They, along with the others like Go Daddy, provide a service available to the general public. If a bakery has to bake a cake, why shouldn’t they have to provide their services to everyone as well. Am I wrong?

I don't agree that bakeries should have to bake cakes for anybody, but I have a different analogy.

AT&T doesn't limit what you can say on your telephone because they are a utility. The internet is also a utility, and companies using the internet for means of mass communication should be regulated as such.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I don't agree that bakeries should have to bake cakes for anybody, but I have a different analogy.

Agreed but the gov sees it differently. It’s another case of talking out of both sides of their mouth


AT&T doesn't limit what you can say on your telephone because they are a utility. The internet is also a utility, and companies using the internet for means of mass communication should be regulated as such.

Agreed

Several comments about this:

Regarding Facebook censorship, I have mixed thoughts. First, a company (Facebook) innovates and provides a service that becomes very popular. They are a company. Why should the Government get involved in what a company does, and how it does/does not serve the needs of its user base? If the company in question (Facebook) is doing such a poor job, why not let natural market forces cause them to lose business, until they change their practices?

On the other hand, I think the legal question is, because of its popularity, has its "power" in the marketplace grown so much that it has become a "quasi-governmental force" that controls so much of what the populace sees that it needs to be regulated to ensure fairness? I think it does, but we have to be careful what we ask for. We could probably make a similar claim about the Internet, where the Government has to step in to regulate network traffic to ensure "fairness" to everyone. I certainly don't want that to happen. I know the "internet" isn't really controlled by a single company, but I could see how someone would try to make the same argument.

Now, on to Amazon/AWS "deplatforming" a company. I see this as a much bigger deal than the Facebook issue. In addition to the same argument for Facebook above, if a company develops an application "cloud-native", meaning it specifically utilizes AWS services that are unique to AWS, then that application is "dependent" on AWS. This means that the application cannot simply be "switched" to another provider like Microsoft's Azure. The application has to be changed, possibly even re-architected, to be made "cloud native" and run on a different cloud platform. This costs money, as well as lost time since the application will not run from the time AWS stops offering its services, to the time it takes to change the app to run on another cloud.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I don't agree that bakeries should have to bake cakes for anybody, but I have a different analogy.

AT&T doesn't limit what you can say on your telephone because they are a utility. The internet is also a utility, and companies using the internet for means of mass communication should be regulated as such.

'Or', they should lose their section 230 protection from liability, and enjoy the full unbridling assault by the people when they attempt to play lord and master over the them. Ten or twelve good multi-billion dollar hits should adjust their attitude quite a bit.

And I'll take your baker response a bit further. If you own your own business (which I know you do) you should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason you choose. Don't wish to deal with blue eyed scandinavian types (like me), that's your choice. Black people annoy you, its your choice not to service them. Asian or middle eastern folks? You get the idea. In private industry, no one should be forced to deal with anyone they choose not to.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
I don't agree that bakeries should have to bake cakes for anybody, but I have a different analogy.

Not really. The bakery, just as with Facebook, Amazon, and GoDaddy, are supplying services or products for which there are alternatives. Some of them may dominate a market segment, but they aren't monopolies.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
AT&T doesn't limit what you can say on your telephone because they are a utility.

Close. AT&T and the other telephone service providers have "common carrier" status.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
The internet is also a utility, and companies using the internet for means of mass communication should be regulated as such.

Good luck arguing that here. Most SFites were, and are, vehemently opposed to Net Neutrality, which essentially sought to impose on Internet Service Providers strictures similar to those imposed on other providers with common carrier status.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
If you own your own business (which I know you do) you should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason you choose.

I agree, except where the business in question has established a monopoly or near-monopoly position and they're supplying a product or service deemed essential or critical.

Particularly when part of the mechanism for establishing that monopoly or near-monopoly position was by means of various forms of government aid.

Some of these tech folks want to eat their cake and have it too.

When angling for protection from being sued for what's on (or blocked from) their site:
"Oh, no, we can't be sued for the content on our site...we have nothing to say about that, we're like a electrical power company, we just connect people."

Every other second, of every other minute, of every other hour, of every other day:
"Oh, no, we can't allow that* on our site...block/delete/edit. "

*the definition of 'that' being based on their own preferences, and subject to change without notice.

They need to answer the question once for all: Which are you? Are you the protected-from-lawsuits 'everything' site, or are you not?

quote:

Originally posted by Tn226:
If a bakery has to bake a cake, why shouldn’t they have to provide their services to everyone as well. Am I wrong?

You're wrong when your premise is wrong. The bakery doesn't have to bake a cake. The bakers ultimately won that case in the Supreme Court.

Facebook is a de facto monopoly. Google found out how hard it is to start up a new social media platform with the ill fated "Circles". Facebook bought Instagram to prevent competition and more recently bought What's App which is probably the biggest phone-based platform in the world, again to prevent competition. The problem with starting a new platform is getting a critical mass of users so that people have a reason to use it.

As such, the rules change, since there is no viable alternative. I know many small businesses that do not have their own websites, and only use Facebook to advertise, contact customers, etc. because that's where everyone is and it's a lot simpler than having your own dedicated website.

Facebook's actions during the past election are reprehensible. The NYPost Hunter Biden laptop story was blocked and you could not even send a link through Messenger. Think about that - they blocked private messages sharing a newsworthy story carried by a major newspaper. Think about that - monitoring private messages for content they don't approve of. If a phone company ever censored private conversations or text messages based on content there would be hell to pay, and rightly so.

Twitter froze the NYPost account as well. That is coordinated suppression of news that could have harmed Joe Biden's campaign. In fact many voters have stated that knowing about the laptop story may have changed their vote. So from one point of view Big Tech rigged an election by use of coordinated favoritism to Joe Biden and suppression of public/private/media discussion of legitimate stories that might have harmed his election.

Obviously, this cannot be permitted to happen again. Exactly how, I'm not sure. Removing liability protection could result in more censorship where they suppress anything and everything that even remotely might be actionable legally. Think what that would be like. It is true that social media are not publishers in the traditional sense, and making them liable for things users post will not reduce censorship. New regulations that reflect the nature of social media and the behavior permitted for a monopoly holder need to be devised.

As for the hosting services, they are more of a public utility and de-platforming in the manner Parler was shut down should not be permissible either. This is like if a newspaper was denied the ability to purchase paper and ink due to coordinated action by all paper and ink suppliers. That is illegal cartel behavior, and would not be tolerated either. But let's say for example that a hosting service does not want to host pornographic sites, due to the inability to verify that none of the material on the site violates the law. Should they have that prerogative? I think so. But the rules have to be enforced fairly and equally, not targeted to a specific site for political reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
The bakers ultimately won that case in the Supreme Court.

Kinda. The baker only won on the point that providing what the douchebags were asking for went against his religious beliefs, so he had justification not to serve them. Personally, I think that's complete BS. Bakers, and every other private business owner, should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason. It shouldn't have to come down to a religious convictions test.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig: Removing liability protection could result in more censorship where they suppress anything and everything that even remotely might be actionable legally. Think what that would be like. It is true that social media are not publishers in the traditional sense, and making them liable for things users post will not reduce censorship.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. We're not talking Facebook getting sued for allowing 'objectionable' content on the site, we're suggesting Facebook getting sued for removing content or users from the site. And since their business model revolves around eyeballs on the site, I doubt they'd be too motivated to play the editing content or removing users game after one or two multi-billion dollar lawsuits by those impacted.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Facebook is a de facto monopoly.

Nope. It's dominant, but it does not meet the definition of "monopoly."

quote:

Monopoly Law and Legal Definition

Monopoly is a control or advantage obtained by one entity over the commercial market in a specific area. Monopolization is an offense under federal anti trust law. The two elements of monopolization are (1) the power to fix prices and exclude competitors within the relevant market. (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen or historical accident.

Facebook arguably does meet the second condition as a result of their acquisition of Instagram. But they don't even come remotely close to meeting the first.

How to defeat Facebook's dominance: STOP USING IT. It's that easy.

I think the issue for me isn’t the service or lack thereof

It’s the fact that both have decided to become the media outlet for the libtards and have squelched out if existence any opposing thoughts.

They are part of the ongoing coup to take over the country and destroy our way of life.

That makes them the enemy.

Ensigmatic,

That is a "find law" definition from a website, not a legal statute. It is not illegal to have a monopoly, many are sanctioned by government. It is illegal to abuse monopoly power to sustain a monopoly.

Here's what the FTC says:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...nopolization-defined

Here is the Federal lawsuit by over 40 states/territories:

https://www.nj.gov/oag/newsrel...cebook-Complaint.pdf