So Jack Dorsey (Twitter CEO) was on Joe Rogan’s Podcast and the feedback has been mostly negative, see the Dislikes and comments both on Twitter and on the video. I have only watched the first hour so far but the negative reaction seems to stem from 48:00-52:00 and users saying that Rogan was softer compared to other guests.

Obviously Twitter is a private company and according to them Jones violated their TOS, but haven’t cited the reason which seems to be the cause of outrage (AJ/Infowars are banned off all major social media outlets also without explanation)

Would Twitter publicly disclosing why accounts are banned help matters or make things worse when it comes to grey areas? For example say you threaten to kill someone you get banned.
Joe talks about his friend threatening to kill his other friend (they were joking around) and he got banned as Twitter wasn’t aware of the context. If they don’t get banned and someone else did it seems like it would lead to a lot of “but X tweeted Y” argument.

The bias of major tech companies is well documented and the people calling for government regulation of social media are normally against government regulation when it comes to anything else. People seem to agree the most that it should be a public utility when it comes to YouTube due to the adpocalypse as it affected a lot of major Youtubers regardless of viewpoint but I suppose that’s a different argument as they are making money off the advertisements not just voicing their opinion.

“Social media as a public utility is a theory which argues that social networking sites (such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, Google Search and Twitter, etc.) are essential public services that should be regulated by the government, in a manner similar to the way electrical and phone utilities are typically government-regulated. Applying utility-status regulation to social media websites has been a debated topic within Internet policy since 1992“

- Wiki

Do you think social media should become a public utility?

No because I don’t believe they are essential public services. Facebook isn’t the electric company.

I have no trouble regulating it to protect consumer information and forcing it to make user friendly adaptations to the privacy policy and terms of service, but I mostly draw the line there with my internet regulation.

Suggested viewing.

Recent thought on maybe why as a public utility we could benefit by regulating them.




And if you want to watch a whole movie.  Check this movie out.

Feb 3, 2019 19:02:38 GMT mikec said:

No because I don’t believe they are essential public services. Facebook isn’t the electric company.

I have no trouble regulating it to protect consumer information and forcing it to make user friendly adaptations to the privacy policy and terms of service, but I mostly draw the line there with my internet regulation.

I think in a democratic country people who own businesses have a right to refuse.
As long as people are not misquoted or defamed businesses have every right to deny service based on their ethics.
If they do so too blatantly they will lose market share and a new competitor will step up.
I think you can see Tumblr and Twitter losing ground to new media like Reddit and Snapchat probably in part to their TOS.

People should vote with their feet, if the censorship bothers you, consume your media elsewhere.
Fox news argued successfully it was an entertainment service and not a news service... So the rules are out the window.

I believe the internet should be a public utility.

Social media is not.

Follow up podcast in the works.

Feb 4, 2019 15:43:13 GMT KJ said:

I believe the internet should be a public utility.

Social media is not.

/thread