Open to the public and the internet

[satimy]

If we can force restaurants to obey the civil rights act for merely existing and being open to the public, should we regulate companies like twitter that are using the internet which is arguably a public utility to operate? If twitter or any other tech company refuses to obey our constitution while operating with public infrastructure should they be punished?

Is it time for Donald J Trump to lay down the law on these tech companies just like McKinley cracked the whip on standard oil back in the day?

[snplisk]

At this point, tech companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc... have essentially become utilities in all but name. They are absolute monopolies that underscore the foundation of our modern society. I think you could make a case for regulating these as utilities, if not outright nationalizing them. This is much different than simply restaurants or stores, these tools are much bigger and more integral to society; regulation could be much deeper.

[Dezerte]

As long as Trump doesn't squash net neutrality first, maybe.

[Kujako]

We already do... Twitter can not ban you for being a member of a protected class. Just like any other business.

[Independent voter]

At this point, tech companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc... have essentially become utilities in all but name. They are absolute monopolies that underscore the foundation of our modern society. I think you could make a case for regulating these as utilities, if not outright nationalizing them. This is much different than simply restaurants or stores, these tools are much bigger and more integral to society; regulation could be much deeper.

One important thing, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc are not monopolies, almost anyone can create a Google, Twitter or Facebook.

When Standard Oil was declared a monopoly back around 1900, it was a monopoly because it owned everything, the oil fields, the distribution system etc, new companies couldn't compete because there was no oil wells that weren't owned by Standard.

But you can easily rent a server online and recreate one of these services.

So no, I don't think they are monopolies.

[Sinyc]

If we can force restaurants to obey the civil rights act for merely existing and being open to the public, should we regulate companies like twitter that are using the internet which is arguably a public utility to operate? If twitter or any other tech company refuses to obey our constitution while operating with public infrastructure should they be punished?

Is it time for Donald J Trump to lay down the law on these tech companies just like McKinley cracked the whip on standard oil back in the day?

No.

/10chars

[primalmatter]

Look I don't believe people should be censored for speech and will criticize people and companies doing it but it should be their right to do so.

[JohnBrown1917]

Did you guys get triggered by Alt-reich fucks getting banned?

We already do... Twitter can not ban you for being a member of a protected class. Just like any other business.

You're expecting our resident trumpers to actually understand this.

[Darsithis]

We already do. You can't be denied the right to sign up for, say, Twitter because you're black or gay or Christian or Muslim.

Now, what you say on that platform is definitely up for censorship, just because they provide a place to say something doesn't mean you can just say whatever you want.

[callipygoustp]

Big "lawls" at the comparison of modern tech companies to Standard Oil.

[Deleted]

Isn't the civil right about not being able to discriminate because of colour, nationality, sex and religion? Because as far as I know, that's not what people have been banned from mentioned websites for.

I will say that I would enjoy the headline "Nazis now protected class", simply because that would make things somewhat clear

[The One Percent]

Businesses should be able to decline customers based on any reason they want (this includes race, ethnicity, ideology and any other reason). However, law should require these businesses to clearly state in advertisements and on signs who they choose not to serve, so their bigotry or extreme ideological slant can be seen without ever needing to visit the establishment. That way I can avoid being a patron of any business like that (even if I am not one of the declined groups; I simply don't want to support a business like that, regardless of who they are targeting). Same thing for websites, if they have a certain ideology that isn't welcoming towards other certain other (or in some cases, all other) ideologies, then it needs to be stated upfront that way the site can be avoided if it bothers you.

Or we can have the system we have now, which is basically the same thing except the businesses find legal loopholes to discriminate patrons and are able to hide their bigotry/extremisms.

[satimy]

Did you guys get triggered by Alt-reich fucks getting banned?



You're expecting our resident trumpers to actually understand this.

Some of us will care about our country and the broad implications of left wing fascism under the guise of social justice is concerning

[Darsithis]

Businesses should be able to decline customers based on any reason they want (this includes race, ethnicity, ideology and any other reason). However, law should require these businesses to clearly state in advertisements and on signs who they choose not to serve, so their bigotry or extreme ideological slant can be seen without ever needing to visit the establishment. That way I can avoid being a patron of any business like that (even if I am not one of the declined groups; I simply don't want to support a business like that, regardless of who they are targeting). Same thing for websites, if they have a certain ideology that isn't welcoming towards other certain other (or in some cases, all other) ideologies, then it needs to be stated upfront that way the site can be avoided if it bothers you.

Or we can have the system we have now, which is basically the same thing except the businesses find legal loopholes to discriminate patrons and are able to hide their bigotry/extremisms.

I definitely understand where you are coming from. It's a struggle to find that line between one entity's rights and another's. Forcing a business to cater to everyone can feel like a direct assault on their right to choose who to serve.

The problem is while that concept you're suggesting might work in a large city where there are literally hundreds of other viable options, this becomes a problem in a large swath of rural America where that gas station or doctor's office might be the only one for miles, even multiple towns, around.

[melodramocracy]

If we can force restaurants to obey the civil rights act for merely existing and being open to the public, should we regulate companies like twitter that are using the internet which is arguably a public utility to operate? If twitter or any other tech company refuses to obey our constitution while operating with public infrastructure should they be punished?

Is it time for Donald J Trump to lay down the law on these tech companies just like McKinley cracked the whip on standard oil back in the day?

Restraurants can and do enforce their own policies on patrons. Think before you type.

[Molis]

Give me an example of twitter banning someone for being a protected class.

[Darsithis]

Restraurants can and do enforce their own policies on patrons. Think before you type.

For manner of dress. No restaurant in the U.S. would legally be allowed to deny service to, say, a black person on the basis of their being black.

[melodramocracy]

For manner of dress. No restaurant in the U.S. would legally be allowed to deny service to, say, a black person on the basis of their being black.

They would kick out someone who's being obnoxious, which is exactly what I'm guessing the OP's complaint is.

What's really ironic about this particular thread is that Trump has no issue with net neutrality being killed off. Whatever vision the OP has of a public internet won't be around much longer anyhow.

[Endus]

Companies like Twitter are already operating under the same legislation. If Twitter started banning users for being black, or Muslim, they'd face legal action. They're not doing anything of the sort.

There is no inconsistency whatsoever here, and Internet companies aren't getting any kind of a "free pass".

[The One Percent]

I definitely understand where you are coming from. It's a struggle to find that line between one entity's rights and another's. Forcing a business to cater to everyone can feel like a direct assault on their right to choose who to serve.

The problem is while that concept you're suggesting might work in a large city where there are literally hundreds of other viable options, this becomes a problem in a large swath of rural America where that gas station or doctor's office might be the only one for miles, even multiple towns, around.

Thanks for being understanding. The current problem is you may force that doctor's office to take in the patients he doesn't want, but that doesn't stop him from providing substandard services to the people he doesn't want (leaving them in the waiting room longer than needed, treating other patients before them claiming they had "appointments", charging them extra for services, all manner of things that are extremely difficult to prove in court). Same thing for any other business, there is always something you can do to fuck with the customer that is completely legal. I just don't believe that the current system really fixes anything.

With the extreme system (and I do understand it appears extreme) I propose, we could offer assistance to move for groups that are unwelcome in these small towns so they can go some place with more opportunity and equality. Meanwhile, these shitty little bigots lose patronage in their already shitty little businesses, and if they are receiving federal or state funding, then cut them off. Let the town wither, and eventually die off.