0

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame muses whether or not the 1st Amendment jurisprudence can be broadened in such a way to curb the abuses of social media monopolies so that they be regulated much like utilities. I don't find this persuasive, but do think the worst abuses, epic language and hilarity warning do need regulating.

Could social media be regulated under the public accommodation clause of the Civil Rights Act through DOJ regulations in order to create platform neutrality? I find the equal protection clause promise of the Civil Rights Act especially pertinent. Is there a historical precedent that fits?

  • Any source that does not sound like a conspiracy theorist? If Twitter wanted to make unavailable a message, it could do better than "hiding" it with a very conspicuous "The message is unavailable"; only to show the "forbidden" message by just clicking. The author of the video does not know anything about how a distributed IT system (and Twitter in particular) works; they have datacenters around the world and replication of the messages is not instantaneous (no, free services do not have the same level of integrity that the IT services of your bank). Leave the tin foil alone. – SJuan76 Feb 5 '17 at 22:43
  • @SJuan76 Examples of impropriety are out there. You can take a look at the Truthy database for another example. But the abuse is really incidental to the question. – K Dog Feb 6 '17 at 19:06
1

Could social media be regulated under the public accommodation clause of the Civil Rights Act through DOJ regulations in order to create platform neutrality?

Absolutely. laws are created, interpreted and executed by people so it can be changed by people. if enough people want, they can change the laws to do anything they want.

Whether it should be regulated in the manner you described is a different matter. Fortunately, you didn't ask that question.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .