Re: not a utility, was Parler

["John Levine" <johnl () iecc com>]

In article <MWHPR13MB1742905824973AB606D9B80BE4AC0 () MWHPR13MB1742 namprd13 prod outlook com> you write:
> -=-=-=-=-=-
> Unless the courts rule or the legislators enact legislation making them a public utility. In legal circles there is a 
> theory that
> platforms like Facebook, messaging services, etc. might achieve such importance to public life and discourse as to 
> merit regulation
> under the grounds they are an essential utility. I am neutral regarding this idea - I have not studied it and also 
> realize that Amazon
> is not strictly speaking a social media. So my point is tangential.

That is a dream of some factions, but it is not realistic.

You can certainly make an argument that Google and Facebook are
monopolies, but the remedies for that are to break them up or to
require them to provide access to their competitors to some of their
internal facilities, e.g., allow other ad networks to bid on and
provide the ads that show up with your Google search or Facebook page.

Utilities have tariffs under which everyone who orders the same kind
of service gets the same service at the same price. I understand how
to apply that to a railroad or a power company or a telephone company,
but I do not understand how to apply it to a search engine or social
media provider or online megastore and neither does anyone else.

R's,
John