Should Twitter and Facebook be Regulated as Utilities?

[Fast and steady]

Scott Adams just posted the following article on his blog asking whether Twitter and Facebook should be regulated:

 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156377416856/should-twitter-and-facebook-be-regulated-as

 

I wanted to ask the same question here. From the libertarian (and especially anarcho-capitalist) standpoints, I think the answer is a pretty clear "no" since these are private companies and regulating them would be a clear violation of liberty.

 

However, I think Scott makes a good point about how censorship from these platforms effectively blocks people's voices from ever being heard by the masses. To further back up Scott's thinking, since these software giants are (arguably) granted monopolistic status thanks to existing Government rules (notably patents and such) already, I am finding this particular case harder to dismiss than other cases that I have seen posed.

 

I am, of course, aware of the slippery slope that comes as a result of accepting regulations for this 1 case. For example, if we accept regulating platforms that are used for free speech, then why not others (food, air, healthcare, etc)? Thus causing a domino effect of regulations ending in the disaster we have now.

 

While I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, I feel a bit like I am lost in the fog on this one.

 

[Mister Mister]

I think the controversy lies in that these platforms usually don't start as being political, they sell you on being totally open and free social networking and communications platforms, and then once they have established themselves as a popular, they start to enforce a political agenda.  So I think a case could be made, however shaky, that it is a violation of an implicit contract.

[Will Torbald]

Probably not, but the government could fund a completely public and 1st ammendment protected social network themselves in order to prevent media monopolies.

[Fast and steady]

I think the controversy lies in that these platforms usually don't start as being political, they sell you on being totally open and free social networking and communications platforms, and then once they have established themselves as a popular, they start to enforce a political agenda.  So I think a case could be made, however shaky, that it is a violation of an implicit contract.

 

That's an interesting perspective that I had not considered... thanks for sharing it!

[themortalgod]

Personally I feel the conflict of interest presented by a government controlled social media mechanism would probably be worse and more harmful to freedom of speech than privately controlled ones. That said, I fear the social media space is starting to look to much like a monopoly controlled by a few players and thus abuse of the market is enabled to take place

In my opinion Facebook was engaging in pretty heavy anti-competitive practices when it bought IG and also was looking to buy Snapchat. With the decline of Twitter that means FB is quickly control of far too much of the mainstream social media market. This coupled with how nearly impossible it is for new competitors to gain ground in the space. (When was the last time a social media really took off that was new? Google has tried so hard to make G+ go and its just a flop. The problem with social media is that its value isn't necessarily tied to the innovation of the product but rather where everyone is. Unless you come up with something that somehow grows mega huge, mega fast, there really is no new competition.)

Thus I feel the solution lies somewhere in action designed to protect the free market rather than one that cedes power to government oversight.