• ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    I thought private businesses could refuse any customer? Isn’t a social media poster just a customer of the site which is a private business?

    • BrikoXOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Yes, and ironically private companies are protected by the First Amendment from the government as they are not the government. The stupid argument is that these private companies are utilities like water or electricity, so they should serve everyone without any option to refuse or remove.

      For the most part, it should be nothing to worry about, as the case is stupid on its face, but with how political courts in the US become, it’s a gamble on how they will rule since legal precedents and case law means nothing.

      • ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        If we’re going to argue that social media is a utility shouldn’t the entire internet be a utility ensuring the future of net neutrality?

      • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        They’re basically the public square these days, they should be regulated by the government.

        • BrikoXOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Private companies are already regulated by the government. But they are not run by them government, so if you are removed it doesn’t infringe your First Amendment. If government want to start hosting their own social media instances like some Europe countries has done with Mastodon they are welcome to do so.

          The fact that you don’t like how they are regulated, is a different question. Complain to your politician that takes from bribes from these private companies to make your life worse.

          • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            You didn’t even address the core of what I said in my one sentence comment, not much point continuing this.

            • BrikoXOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Indeed. To be a public square, it has to be operated or controlled by the government, so your one sentence is flawed on its face. I tried to educate you, you are welcome to ignore me.

              • BumpingFuglies
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Legally, yes, they’re private companies that are not beholden to the First Amendment.

                Practically, they are the de facto town square and should be treated as such.

                • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  I don’t think you’ll get through to this person, they don’t want to understand.