Should Google and Facebook be run as common carriers?

Should Google and Facebook be run as common carriers?

Discussion in 'Internet Chatter' started by CM30, Aug 13, 2017.

  1. CM30

    CM30 Well-Known Member Staff Member Vice Admin Full GL Member

    12,882
    975
    Male
    Money:
    $3,462
    Or in other words, regulated by the government so they act more like the telephone company than standard businesses?

    Because at the moment, it's all too easy to lose your internet presence if you're banned from one or the other, and some of their services (like YouTube) had few viable competitors.

    So could the government step in and require them to be run as a common carrier, with no censorship allowed other than what's legally necessary? Or heck, even buy them out entirely and run them as government organisations?

    What do you think?
     
  2. froggyboy604

    froggyboy604 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    16,935
    82
    Money:
    $26,084
    I think YouTube, and Facebook should allow users to buy, and sell Facebook and YouTube username/Youtube path addresses like Youtube.com/pathname/ like website domain names, and let user pay for paid hosting storage space like web hosting to have more control over their files rather than having Facebook and YouTube have the control to delete any user account at any time.

    If users are not paying for a services like web hosting, they have to follow the rules which the free hosting company posted on the rules section of their website, and the free web hosting site may shutdown suddenly without warning, or sell itself to a bigger company like how DeviantArt got sold to Wix for $36 million.

    One of the reasons that paid web hosting, and a paid website domain name is better than free web hosting and a free domain is that you can easily backup your files and move, and you are not stuck using a free path or subdomain name like subdomain.example.com or example.com/path.

    But, in some cases, website owners can still have your website taken away by the government if you use it for illegal purposes like selling guns to non-licensed gun users, or some company use the court to try to claim your domain name because it violates their copyright, or the files like copyrighted movie and TV show files on the website is violating their copyright.
     
  3. Demon_Skeith

    Demon_Skeith Administrator Staff Member Administrator

    Top Poster Of Month

    50,877
    574
    Nah, I don't think we need/want the government dipping their fingers into this.
     
  4. froggyboy604

    froggyboy604 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    16,935
    82
    Money:
    $26,084
    Having legal protection from the law where your social networking profile, and YouTube channel cannot be deleted at randomly is useful for YouTube and Facebook users who rely on using them for posting news, information, and self-produce music and short movies on big social networking websites. It is harder to promote news articles without using social networks, search engines, and other blogs.

    YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Wikipedia, and other sites are one of the main reasons that traditional newspapers, news channels, and magazines are becoming less popular. A lot of older news companies like CNN are relying more on social networking websites like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Instagram for promoting their news stories and TV channel because more people choose to get their news and information from social networks instead of traditional news.

    Big companies like CNN most likely wants legal protection from the law where their social networking profiles can't be randomly deleted by the website owner without being sued.
     

Share This Page