[Sivad]

Youtube is not a public utility, however. It says it CAN BE, but you have no evidence to actually prove that it is. It's opinion, on your part.



Social media as a public utility is a THEORY.

I still can't tell if this is for real.

It is trivially true that right now Youtube is not regulated as a public utility. My only contention is that a solid argument can be made that youtube meets the criteria of a public utility. That's it. You were claiming that private companies can't be public utilities and that's factually wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.

[4cal]

If you want to pretend youtube is a part of the government owned by the state and run by the civil service that is between you and your psychiatrist. Do you also think your local corner shop is part of the government? What about the local paper boy? Or maybe the guy at the hot dog stall?

So, if I want to upload all of my vacation videos to Prisonplanet, National Geographic or the Smithsonian websites, they would have to make them searchable on their website? Cool.

[4cal]

Another of pofo's many highly qualified and knowledgeable jurists. I'm really out of my depth here.

First thing you got right....ever

[Godstud]

It is trivially true that right now Youtube is not regulated as a public utility. My only contention is that a solid argument can be made that youtube meets the criteria of a public utility. That's it. You were claiming that private companies can't be public utilities and that's factually wrong. It's not a matter of opinion.

Agreed. I cannot say that, but at the same time, you cannot make your claim "factually". Is there any reason why you have to be particularly rude towards me, simply because I don't agree with you?

Youtube, while currently not a public utility, should not be one. It's not going to cure censorship, and in fact, will make censorship worse.

[Sivad]

First thing you got right....ever

Good one.

[Sivad]

you cannot make your claim "factually".

Whatever.

[Crantag]

What? You claimed Youtube can't be a monopoly because there are competitors, that's just not how monopoly is defined.

No, I claimed YouTube isn't a monopoly. And I know how a monopoly is defined.

Properly, for YouTube to be defined as an example of a monopoly it would need to be litigated in court.

It isn't one, though.

[Godstud]

Whatever.

Great argument. I can see your skills at debate are top notch. Please don't ever claim to have the intellectual high ground when you can't even make a reply to a simple query, or even form a coherent argument.

[Sivad]

Properly, for YouTube to be defined as an example of a monopoly it would need to be litigated in court.

Where you getting that from?

Tell me about it dude.

[Crantag]

Where you getting that from?

Sivad, your ignorance is not my issue.

If there was found to be grounds for anti-trust litigation against YouTube, and the issue were brought before a court, lawyers with specialties in the topic of monopoly law would debate the matter. Out of such proceedings that there might be grounds for discussion.

Of course, there are no inklings that this is in the cards (unless you can point to any such inklings).

Now what I say to you, is of course there are no such inklings, because YouTube is not a monopoly, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Pants-of-dog]

If it acts as a public utility then it must be regulated as such. The argument is not that we need to broaden the definition, it's that youtube fits the definition. But really what I'm addressing here is the claim that the government doesn't have the right to restrict private companies from discriminatory practices. There are well defined classifications like 'public forum', 'common carrier', and 'public utility' that restrict companies that fall under those classifications from discrimination.

Then please provide evidence that Youtube is restrcited in this way. Thank you.

As far as I can tell, Youtube is not currently defined as a public utility and laws concerning public utilities do not apply to Youtube at this moment.

No, it's an open question that is currently being decided through the courts. The courts will determine whether or not the first amendment applies to social media.

If it currently being decided by the courts, then it logically follows that the first amendment does not currently apply.

Aside from all the international trade agreements, conventions, treaties that most countries have entered into to deal with these sorts of issues, if a company wants to do business inside the US it has to comply with US law. That gives the US quite a bit of leverage which makes it very unlikely that Alphabet or any of its subsidiaries would just ignore federal policy.

Please show which international trade agreements, conventions, treaties, etc. hold foreign companies to US law.

Youtube, by the way, does not run a business in the US, except for its headquarters. If it moved its headquarters to London or Toronto, it would no linger be doing business in the US.

[Decky]

I always find it amusing that people who purport to be communists defend private property rights to the hilt. You are the people who find yourselves despondent that people don't adopt socialism, but you are the best defenders of capitalism out there.

You seem to be a bit confused. I am pointing out that google is a private company. I am not arguing that it should be. I would nationalise it in 10 seconds flat if it were up to me.

Pointing out that freedom of speech as it is practiced in some capitalist nations is about the government limiting speech and not private companies limiting speech does not mean I am in favour of it. I am just pointing out that this is the way it is. Millions are starving the world, by pointing it out does it mean I support that?

Pointing out that google is a private company owned by shareholders and operated for profit does not mean I want it to be that way. I am just pointing out that today in 2018 that is the situation.

I couldn't give a shit about property rights or freedom of speech. I just find it amusing some people are so disconnected from reality they think google is part of the US government and thus effected by the first amendment.

The first amendment prevents congress form passing laws to stop free speech (it doesn't of course but in theory I mean).

Google is not congress. Surely you must be aware of that? If I broke into your house to give a communist speech and you kicked me out would it be a freedom of speech issue? Of course not, your house (just like google) is private property.

[blackjack21]

Pointing out that freedom of speech as it is practiced in some capitalist nations is about the government limiting speech and not private companies limiting speech does not mean I am in favour of it. I am just pointing out that this is the way it is.

Well, I could take that at face value. I would just expect a more advanced argument. A lot of social media companies have ties to the CIA. So it is legally accurate to call them private companies. If In-Q-Tel funds a private company in whole or in part, what does that do to your thinking on the matter? I suppose nothing. I'm just pointing out that they are taking their direction at least in part from private political parties and government agencies who are staffed by private political parties.

I'm also essentially stating that capitalist societies already limit freedom of speech and commerce to a significant extent, and most people really aren't aware of it. Let me give you an example:

I worked at a gaming company once, so I keep up on gaming. One of the games I like is Sniper Elite. In that game, I get to kill fascists--basically, Italian Fascists and Nazis. I also have Call of Duty WWII. There are lots of flavors of those games, but most don't appeal to me. Since I enjoy history, I enjoy the WWII games, because they do a very good job of depicting actual battle locations like the Kaserine Pass, Siwa Oasis, Tobruk and so forth, and workwise I stay current should I find myself in a gaming company again.

The political message from the state via Sniper Elite is that I should hate Nazis. Playstation (XBox, etc) have global markets for games. I'm sure there is a market for Arabs that want to play a video game where they are killing Israelis, etc. Do you notice that there are no such games on the market? It's not because the market for such games don't exist. They would probably be quite profitable in the Middle East and in other areas of the Muslim world. Yet, they don't exist. It's because the state is preventing such games from getting into the market.

As a communist, wouldn't you love to play a game where you participate in armed struggle against the government of the UK and install a communist government? There are probably enough people like you to sustain a market for such a game. Yet, nobody has thought, "Hey, let's make a video game where we overthrow the capitalist state and replace it with communism!"

YouTube may be a private corporation. However, the major parties in the United States are upset about the Tea Party--which is not particularly aligned with either the Democrats or the Republicans anymore. They are predominantly middle class and basically no longer have any faith or trust in the so-called Washington "elite." They are the audience for a lot of different people who do not promote the "shared values" the establishment suggests we all subscribe to in spite of other tangential differences.

YouTube, and activists on the political left, are trying to stamp out views they don't agree with. The state is facilitating that by trying to maintain the illusion of a two-party political system.

Millions are starving the world, by pointing it out does it mean I support that?

Not really. However, I'm guessing you don't condemn the totalitarian or quasi-totalitarian societies where starvation is problematic--say, North Korea, Myanmar or Venezuela, for example.

Pointing out that google is a private company owned by shareholders and operated for profit does not mean I want it to be that way. I am just pointing out that today in 2018 that is the situation.

Legally speaking, you aren't going to get a big argument out of me. However, arguing that Google isn't taking its direction from a major political party, taking money from the government to enforce their political narrative, etc. is where we part company.

The first amendment prevents congress form passing laws to stop free speech (it doesn't of course but in theory I mean).

Google is not congress. Surely you must be aware of that?

I'm well aware of that. However, Google is a publicly-traded company. It's not a privately held enterprise. I understand Congress cannot use its power to prevent the press from publishing freely. However, it can use its commerce power to pay the press to say certain things or not say certain things.

[Sivad]

Then please provide evidence that Youtube is restrcited in this way. Thank you.

Please explain how your question here pertains in any conceivable way to anything I wrote. Thank you.

If it currently being decided by the courts, then it logically follows that the first amendment does not currently apply.

No it doesn't, you need to work on your logic. All it means is it's not currently being applied, it definitely doesn't mean that it's not applicable.

Please show which international trade agreements, conventions, treaties, etc. hold foreign companies to US law.

I don't know any specific agreements but I do know that it's common for courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants and to enforce foreign judgements.

Comity

Long-arm jurisdiction

Enforcement of foreign judgments

Hague Service Convention

Here's two examples -
What do you do if your patent is infringed by a foreign corporation without a U.S. office? There are a couple of far-from-obvious solutions available to the patentee. The Hague Convention treaty provides one option; the secretary of state offers another.

This company can sue your company in China and then win in China and then bring that judgment to a US Court and convert it to a US Judgment and then start seizing your company’s assets. My own law firm actually took a Chinese judgment to California and got it enforced and we have done the same thing with a Russian judgment. We also have on at least two occasions represented US companies sued under circumstances similar to what you describe and we settled both of those cases to avoid the substantial risk of the judgments being enforced in the US.
https://www.chinalawblog.com/2015/11/yo ... tters.html

[Decky]

As a communist, wouldn't you love to play a game where you participate in armed struggle against the government of the UK and install a communist government? There are probably enough people like you to sustain a market for such a game.

Wow you really do know nothing about the UK, the far left here is more or less non existent.

I'm well aware of that. However, Google is a publicly-traded company. It's not a privately held enterprise. I understand Congress cannot use its power to prevent the press from publishing freely. However, it can use its commerce power to pay the press to say certain things or not say certain things.

Ah now I see why you are so confused politically. You believe the government controls big business to do its bidding?

You have got things the wrong way round. The state (in a capitalist country) is a slave to capital. The state does as the rich businessmen tell it to. Not the other way around. Economic power always precedes political power.

I see Sivad is still clutching at straws.

[Sivad]

I see Sivad is still clutching at straws.

I have a genuine interest in the subject so most of this is just for my own edification. I gave up on the possibility for intelligent discussion with the pofo crew a while back.

[Pants-of-dog]

Please explain how your question here pertains in any conceivable way to anything I wrote. Thank you.

You claimed that Youtube acts like a public utility and heeds to be regulated as such, specifically that government can make sure that Youtube does not discriminate.

Please 0rovide evidence that Youtube is restricted by the government in terms of not being allowed to discriminate what material is hosted on Youtube.

No it doesn't, you need to work on your logic. All it means is it's not currently being applied, it definitely doesn't mean that it's not applicable.

And since I said this means that it is not currently applied, then we are in agreement that the first amendment does not currently apply to the situation.

I don't know any specific agreements but I do know that it's common for courts to exercise jurisdiction over foreign defendants and to enforce foreign judgements.

Comity

Long-arm jurisdiction

Enforcement of foreign judgments

Hague Service Convention

Here's two examples -
What do you do if your patent is infringed by a foreign corporation without a U.S. office? There are a couple of far-from-obvious solutions available to the patentee. The Hague Convention treaty provides one option; the secretary of state offers another.

If any of these links support your claim, please quote the applicable text. Thank you.

[Godstud]

I have a genuine interest in the subject so most of this is just for my own edification.

Your mistake was to post and expect everyone to agree with you. I do not see how this works towards your edification, if you cannot debate in good stead.

I gave up on the possibility for intelligent discussion with the pofo crew a while back.

That is because you won't have an honest discourse with people, and fall back on insults and weak arguments. The flaw is in you, not pofo, or it's posters.

[Drlee]

I could pretty easily make a case for considering certain new inventions, such as the pervasive social media we have, public utilities. Not too many years ago one could assert that Facebook and Twitter were simply entertainment. I am not so certain now.

We have a president of the US who fired his Secretary of State on twitter. Every morning the media looks to twitter to see what the government is doing. But it goes deeper than that.

Effective modern political speech requires social media. Without it one has seriously restricted political speech. So if Facebook just decided to tell the democrats that they could no longer have a presence there it would be a devastating blow to their political effectiveness. I think it is fair to say that a political candidate without social media access would be unlikely to be electable. This is not just a matter of convenience. It is a critical requirement for a political campaign. So does that "prove" that the government has a stake in keeping Facebook and Twitter open access? Should the government regulate these two as utilities to ensure that we have meaningful free speech? I say yes.

It even goes further than that. To get a message out it has to be accessible. We get the majority of our information from the internet these days. And. 79.8% of all searches are google. So what happens when the gurus at google decide that republican websites are to be lower on the page than democratic party ones? Does that argue that we the people have a stake in keeping google open access? In other words regulate what they are allowed to do with the data they index?

But it is worse. All of these are tied together. Google has highly secret algorithms that determine precedence on search engines. Web site optimization is make or break for any business. Got that. But is it make or break for website expressing a particular political position? It is. Oh but wait. The number of hits one's facebook page gets and tweet views a site gets affect where that site will be on a search. This is even true in the micro. A single article can disappear or change the world based upon decisions solely made by the friendly folks at Google.

Not only can the case be made that these services ought to be highly regulated, it is long past time we did it. With the Trump organizations decision to allow ISPs to decide what you get to see in a reasonable time we can see the first shots in the war.

I will make a bold statement. If Google, Facebook and Twitter decided to huddle up in a back room somewhere they could pick the next president. And there is nothing in the world we can do about it.

These services should be regulated as utilities.

[Crantag]

Interesting case from Drlee.

But the question is, who will watch the watchers?

In the conventional sense, utilities are natural monopolies; because the 'free market' is not of sufficient scale for there to be sufficient free competition with respect to provision of electric power, waterworks, etc.

Internet service companies are sort of of a different category, it seems.

In principle, it is probably already illegal for Facebook, Google and Twitter to collude with respect to pursuing certain political agendas. (But what about political agendas for which they have common cause? Nothing on the books about that, I don't suppose.)

The state of internet companies are also constantly in flux.

Also, there use to be a time when spending too much time on the internet would be properly regarded as anti-social behavior. Now it's considered a deviation from the norm, among mainstream conventions, to not be engaged in social media.

Basically the main underlying point which I am driving at is that these are at once new, and evolving, phenomena.

Might be high time we shut the social media down, and/or nationalize key aspects. Yeah, that is never going to happen.

I think the problems are identifiable enough; the solutions, not so much.