nanog mailing list archives
Re: not a utility, was Parler
From: Rod Beck <rod.beck () unitedcablecompany com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2021 12:19:41 +0000
Declare Facebook a public utility and eliminate advertising by replacing with a fee or what you call a tariff. Breaking up does not always work. Facebook is like a natural monopoly - people want one site to connect with all their 'friends'. No one is going to use several Facebooks as social media platform. They want one. Regards, Roderick. ________________________________ From: John Levine <johnl () iecc com> Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 11:57 PM To: nanog () nanog org <nanog () nanog org> Cc: Rod Beck <rod.beck () unitedcablecompany com> Subject: Re: not a utility, was Parler In article <MWHPR13MB1742905824973AB606D9B80BE4AC0 () MWHPR13MB1742 namprd13 prod outlook com> you write:
-=-=-=-=-=- Unless the courts rule or the legislators enact legislation making them a public utility. In legal circles there is a theory that platforms like Facebook, messaging services, etc. might achieve such importance to public life and discourse as to merit regulation under the grounds they are an essential utility. I am neutral regarding this idea - I have not studied it and also realize that Amazon is not strictly speaking a social media. So my point is tangential.
That is a dream of some factions, but it is not realistic. You can certainly make an argument that Google and Facebook are monopolies, but the remedies for that are to break them up or to require them to provide access to their competitors to some of their internal facilities, e.g., allow other ad networks to bid on and provide the ads that show up with your Google search or Facebook page. Utilities have tariffs under which everyone who orders the same kind of service gets the same service at the same price. I understand how to apply that to a railroad or a power company or a telephone company, but I do not understand how to apply it to a search engine or social media provider or online megastore and neither does anyone else. R's, John
Current thread:
- Re: more bad lawyering about Parler, (continued)
- Message not available
- Re: more bad lawyering about Parler William Herrin (Jan 11)
- Re: more bad lawyering about Parler Joe Greco (Jan 11)
- Re: more bad lawyering about Parler William Herrin (Jan 11)
- Re: more bad lawyering about Parler John Levine (Jan 11)
- Re: more bad lawyering about Parler John Levine (Jan 11)
- Re: Parler bzs (Jan 10)
- Re: Parler Matthew Petach (Jan 11)
- Re: Parler William Herrin (Jan 11)
- Re: Parler Aaron C. de Bruyn via NANOG (Jan 10)
- Re: not a utility, was Parler John Levine (Jan 10)
- Re: not a utility, was Parler Rod Beck (Jan 11)
- Re: not a utility, was Parler Karl Auer (Jan 11)
- Re: not a utility, was Parler Sabri Berisha (Jan 11)
- Re: the tiny domain business, not a utility, was Parler John Levine (Jan 11)
- Re: the tiny domain business, not a utility, was Parler Randy Bush (Jan 11)
- Re: not a utility, was Parler Matthew Petach (Jan 11)
- Re: Parler and the total legality of content moderation John Levine (Jan 10)
- Re: Parler Michael Thomas (Jan 10)
- Re: Parler Seth Mattinen (Jan 10)