Is Comcast not a private company too?

This feels too much like a similar argument that people have been making lately, where silencing voices can only be considered "censorship" if it comes from the government. I'm so tired of seeing this! It's part of a larger trend, where people arbitrarily narrow definitions in service of their argument. It's disingenuous, to say the least.

(For the record, I'm AGAINST censorship whether it's Twitter, Comcast, or anyone else who provides services to the masses. Small private "clubs" like your model train website are a different animal. And yes, obviously that means that there are grey areas that cannot be cleanly resolved. Such is life.)

(Edit: toned down my response a bit.)

Comcast is not your average private company because they hold a monopoly or oligopoly position in many markets.

In effective marketplaces, we trust the choice of purchasers to do most of the necessary work of making sure companies really serve the public. If some ISP in a competitive market decided to shut off access to all Republican-leaning news and commentary, we'd expect many people to switch to an ISP that didn't censor. But if Comcast did that, many people would just be screwed.

I agree that censorship is the pervasive silencing of voices. I disagree that Twitter can do that. Twitter may kick some people off their platform, but the Internet's open nature means those people can set up their own website. ISPs in noncompetitive markets, on the other hand, can indeed censor material, because many people will have no easy way to get that material.

That's why common carrier regulations predate the Internet by decades: some societal infrastructure is too important and too prone to capture to leave it up to the whims of individual executives. You could make the argument that Twitter is that kind of infrastructure. But given that only 20% of Americans use Twitter even once a month and a much smaller number use it daily, I think it's hard to say it's in the same category as the telephone or the Internet itself.

Ok, I can see where you are coming from, but I guess we fundamentally disagree on this. I see any company that provides a de facto public "square" as being equivalent on some level to a public space. (Much as malls were deemed to be a form of public space in the courts a while back, not that it is completely settled law.)

In my opinion, when a company's platform becomes one of the largest and most important venues for public discussion, they can no longer be considered a purely "private" entity in the same way. Corporations exist at the leisure of the public, as the public allows their charters to exist and defines (through law) the powers granted to the corporation. Expression of fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech defeats corporate concerns in this case. The public square must be open to the public, or democracy cannot function.

There are two key differences between Twitter and public space. One is that public space is owned by the public. The other is that public space is physically central to a community. All web sites are equidistant. The reason we don't have public space on the Internet yet is that we have a such a superfluity of private spaces.

I get your theory that private community spaces take on additional responsibilities once they're important enough to a community and maybe there's a way to legislate that. But it would be challenging. HN is definitely an important space for this community, for example. Every local newspaper is important too. The notion that we should have detailed federal regulations for exactly how to moderate a discussion thread plus a legal appeals process strikes me as unworkable in practice.

If we really want virtual public space, I think the thing to do is just to build or buy it. It would be easy enough to nationalize Facebook and Twitter for example; Congress just says "now they're part of the government", optionally paying the shareholders.

"Public" and "private" spaces are not so clear-cut. Not all public space is publicly owned. Again, see the shopping mall: https://www.minnpost.com/cityscape/2015/03/complex-role-mall.... As the article points out, the notion of "public space" is really a sort of conflict zone with ever-shifting boundaries. (If you remember "free speech zones" you can see how even fully public space gets attacked when protest becomes inconvenient.)

I completely agree that it would be impractical to legislate moderation or terms of service, except on maybe a very coarse scale. I'm not sure what the answer is. Like much in the political sphere, this may just be a space where law and litigation has to fight it out with private industry until the end of time. A "solution" that satisfies all parties may not be possible.

Thanks for the discussion.

> Is Comcast not a private company too?

An utterly different KIND of private company! A fundamentally different situation which does need regulation due to the differences that exist.

How the heck can we be this deep into the discussion and that's somehow unclear?

Because we are not being honest. You want a private company to act as a public company. Nothing wrong with it, just that public should first buy them out.

Then you might be shocked to learn that net neutrality actually permitted ISPs to engage in viewpoint-based censorship.

This whole debate has been so completely hijacked by utterly false premise arguments.