No–unless you’re running a company town.
It’s more complex than simple analogies will allow.
If courts can force custom content creation I’m surprised they can’t force neutrality when it comes to being an internet platform. I suppose small business don’t have the billions to successfully control their own regulations.
What Twitter, Amazon, and the other tech giants are doing is an unfair exploitation of near monopoly power. Even Microsoft or AT&T were never this dominant or powerful.
Yes, if custom content creators for hire are ‘’‘forced’‘’ to create custom content and get paid by everyone that walks through their doors what will the world come to?
If you’re only half dressed, you’re not going to look well put together.
:flees:
Flex cuffs are this year’s ‘little black dress’.
So, Amazon can refuse service but small companies can’t? Funny how when there are a million alternatives to a service it’s a problem if one company refuses service yet when you have a behemoth like Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Amazon refusing service it’s perfectly fine. I have a feeling that if the radicals on the left were silenced, jailed, cancelled, and completely frozen out by big tech the song the inhabitants of this board would sing would be diametrically opposite.
It’s much like the belated discovery of the 9th and 10th amendments the so-called ‘resistance’ happened upon when Trump became president.
So, you support forcing Christian bakers in one bakery towns to bake ‘’‘gay cakes’’’, good to have you on the record.
I’m pretty much with RyanAdam on this. Nobody forced Trump to use Twitter and it’s not the only social media available.
For what it’s worse, I lean against forcing cake shops to serve all customers. It’s not a perfect comparison: Trump was inciting violence and if Twitter didn’t shut him down there could be more. There’s not a whole lot of harm one way or the other in wedding cakes.
I support consistency. I don’t support hypocrisy with fundamental principles based upon which political faction is utilizing them.
This is where the oligopoly argument comes in.
If the were just two or three newspapers in the country there might have been similar discussions: if a very few own and control the totality of the means of expression then should society demand some assurances that such power is not being abused?
As a society we are, in face of that concentrated power over the soap box, in fact making demands on what they allow and do not allow on their platforms. We are insisting that they control for hate speech, flag misinformation, so on. The argument that it’s theirs so they can do whatever they want does not fly.
Tell me how many media markets besides New York and Chicago ever had more than a single newspaper?
There’s nothing different in my opinion.
I’m no expert, but I suspect many do or did. Seattle had two until recently. Rochester NY had two when I was growing up.
Are you
claiming that few did? Cite please. And in any case the power and scope of a biggest paper of a town or city and of these platforms are hardly comparable.
To the degree that newspaper did have concentrated power it was a concern.
Also not sure how far the analogy holds. These platforms are not publishers of the content, they make a big deal of that.
So they were Oligopolies, 1, 2 or 3 … and so that simply confirms my point, I never had a political right to get myself a newspaper column. I guess for TV there was the FCC Fairness Doctrine until 87, but that was based on Boadcast Spectrum physical technological limitations. Not on “market can’t support more than 2 or 3 publishers”
I also never had a right pre internet to get myself a radio show spot, sure I might get a spot on a community channel but that was by forbearance not right.
I see exactly zero difference. Technology changed but nothing in real terms except it got easier. That doesn’t give anyone the right to essentially nationalise private publisher assets by imposing a right to publish.
The short sighted opportunistic squealing of the far right ideologues only highlight that they are authoritarian opportunists and not real free market democratic small c conservatives.
If its decided that there needs to be a public Twitter (God forbid, twitter communism…) then like a public broadcasting Corp set the damn thing up and give it a mandated access. Don’t backdoor nationalize private endeavors by bullshit assertions.
I’m not going to get dragged into your hijack about cakes, but this is clearly false. AT&T was the only phone carrier for most of the country before they were broken up. You had to use them (their services and their equipment) if you wanted a phone. Twitter isn’t the only way to make your opinion known. For example, I’m making my opinion known right now!
You must be a kid. Ma Bell was 10000 times more dominant as a carrier. A true monopoly.
Amazon is just one third of cloud services market (which 40 odd percent is various players, not even that concentrated). Big but in no way omni dominant.
Fucking crybabies problem is they want for pure political reasons mandated service of top tier cause it’s got bells and whistles that are cool
It’s not illegal in the U.S.
For a long time there were only three national broadcast news companies. That seems like a firmer grip on news than Twitter does now.
I see people making the “cake comparison”
They seem to forget there’s a big difference between forcing someone to make a cake and forcing someone to make a pornographic dick shaped cake (or a cake decorated with a black person hanging from a tree if you prefer)
I think the comparison goes the other way. Free speech is vastly more important than cake, and there are a lot less options for social media than bakeries. If it’s okay to demand the baker not discriminate, then it should be okay to demand the same of Twitter.