Social Media and Free Speech?

[Martinus]

At least in the US, antitrust regulation is about the prevention of monopoly pricing.  Don't see how that applies to a free service.

I was simply responding to Zanza's untrue statement that companies do not suddenly acquire new obligations because of their market power, not arguing this is the case for Facebook.

Although, incidentally, for the so-called two-sided markets (where a service is provided for free to the public but the service provider earns money by selling related good to the same or a different customer - such as ad space in free telephone directories) it is recognized that antitrust laws apply also to the side of the market that concerns the free service.

[Barrister]

At least in the US, antitrust regulation is about the prevention of monopoly pricing.  Don't see how that applies to a free service.

Microsoft gave a copy of Internet Explorer "for free" with every purchase of Windows.  That drew a lot of antitrust interest...

[The Brain]

I think it is a bit different as newspapers are by definition about publishing edited content. Facebook is not about own content but about providing platform for people to publish theirs. It is a new social phenomenon hence most analogies don't really work.

So what are you advocating then?

Well, I am not sure - I just wanted to start a discussion. But as I pointed out to Zanza, there is extensive precedent of imposing additional obligations (including obligation to supply good or service on equal terms to every customer, unless it has an objective justification - such as scarcity) on dominant companies.

Does FB systematically let some people do hate speech and not others?

[Admiral Yi]

I was simply responding to Zanza's untrue statement that companies do not suddenly acquire new obligations because of their market power, not arguing this is the case for Facebook.

Although, incidentally, for the so-called two-sided markets (where a service is provided for free to the public but the service provider earns money by selling related good to the same or a different customer - such as ad space in free telephone directories) it is recognized that antitrust laws apply also to the side of the market that concerns the free service.

Of course.  But no one is claiming that Facebook is charging monopoly prices for ads.

[Martinus]

I think it is a bit different as newspapers are by definition about publishing edited content. Facebook is not about own content but about providing platform for people to publish theirs. It is a new social phenomenon hence most analogies don't really work.

So what are you advocating then?

Well, I am not sure - I just wanted to start a discussion. But as I pointed out to Zanza, there is extensive precedent of imposing additional obligations (including obligation to supply good or service on equal terms to every customer, unless it has an objective justification - such as scarcity) on dominant companies.

Does FB systematically let some people do hate speech and not others?

The justification is not objective if it is based on arbitrary, vague criteria. I would say that "hate speech" is quite vague and certainly its interpretation varies wildly from a country to a country and from a person to a person.

[Admiral Yi]

Microsoft gave a copy of Internet Explorer "for free" with every purchase of Windows.  That drew a lot of antitrust interest...

Because of the possibility that free IE would drive all competition out of the market and MS could then charge monopoly prices for its browser.

[Martinus]

I was simply responding to Zanza's untrue statement that companies do not suddenly acquire new obligations because of their market power, not arguing this is the case for Facebook.

Although, incidentally, for the so-called two-sided markets (where a service is provided for free to the public but the service provider earns money by selling related good to the same or a different customer - such as ad space in free telephone directories) it is recognized that antitrust laws apply also to the side of the market that concerns the free service.

Of course.  But no one is claiming that Facebook is charging monopoly prices for ads.

Why are you bringing US law into this?

[Admiral Yi]

Why are you bringing US law into this?

Because its relevant to Facebook's operations in the US and because of the possibility that you misunderstand the basis of EU monopoly law.

[Martinus]

Why are you bringing US law into this?

Because its relevant to Facebook's operations in the US and because of the possibility that you misunderstand the basis of EU monopoly law.

I was talking about German and EU antitrust law to Zanza and I already said I am not arguing this as a legal case for Facebook, but more as a template for regulating Facebook's behavior. As for your second point, the good folks at King's College London thought it appropriate to give me a postgraduate diploma with distinction in EU monopoly law so I dare say the possibility is slim.

[The Brain]

Yep, no diploma-carrying retards about in the world.

[Zanza]

Just because a network has been very successful in market penetration doesn't mean it all of a sudden has other obligations than any other privately owned platform.

Actually, that's not true. A company with market dominance does have other obligations that other privately owned companies do not have. This is a core principle of antitrust law - at least in Germany or the EU at large.

Yes, you are right. I was only aware of the obligations it has towards its competitors (e.g. browser wars, telco privatizations), but not regarding the service it offers as you say in one your posts here. I can see how equal access to a market dominant service is something you should demand under EU antitrust law. Seems sensible.

That said, I don't think it applies to either Facebook or hate speech.

Facebook in my opinion isn't market dominant. You named several competitors with similar reach in your opening post.

And even if it were, I don't think the particular case of hate speech would fall under equal access. Quite the opposite actually as many European countries limit hate speech in many forms, so using antitrust law to protect it does nit make sense. Extending it to Facebook, even on a half-voluntary basis through public pressure instead of laws, seems logical.

I personally prefer the American approach to free speech, but I guess that comes with the American approach to antitrust law, which I gather from this thread (I haven't got any clue myself) does not have the provision of equal access to services.

I guess you can't have the best of both worlds...

[Norgy]

I'm not on facebook. Does that mean I have less freedom of speech than someone who is?

It means you miss a lot of UKIPers and assorted morons.