> what you don't seem to understand is that nobody is forcing you to rely exclusively on a single website for all your communications
That does not change the fact that it would be a bigger problem for me to be banned from facebook than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls, lol.
So when you say this "nobody is forcing you", you are ignoring the fact that they would be forcing a problem on me that would be larger than if I were banned from making phone calls.
So yes. They would be forcing an issue on me that would be larger than if they banned me from making phone calls.
> ignoring the fact that "the phone network"
Phone systems have fallen under utilities laws since before the internet existed. Therefore the analogy to phone calls is relevant.
You can look at home phone line systems. A home phone lines, that gives zero internet access, still falls under utilities laws.
Are you aware that a landline, that gives zero internet access, would still have to follow utilities laws? Just want to make sure you are aware of that.
> meets the definition of a utility
A perfectly reasonable thing to do is compare it to how much a problem it would be to switch from a different utility.
A landline, that has no internet access, is a utility. It falls under utilities laws, even if the singular only thing that it does, is make phone calls, without any internet access. Phone calls, without internet, is a utility.
And switching away from the system that only allows you to make phone calls, and has no internet, and is therefore a utility, would be easier than switching away from facebook.
Sure it does. It matters regarding the justification for the law.
Yes, I understand that common carrier laws do not currently apply to facebook. But, I am saying that the law should be changed so that that do apply to them.
And the justification for this, is because we have utility laws that currently apply to things like a phone system, (even if that phone system provides no internet), and yet it is easier for me to switch from that than it is to switch from facebook.
I understand that the laws don't currently apply to facebook. But it absolutely does resemble a utility in that the problems that it pushes on people are larger than that of other utilities.
That is how it resembles it. The problems are larger than that of another similar utility.
That does not change the fact that it would be a bigger problem for me to be banned from facebook than it would be for me to be banned from making phone calls, lol.
So when you say this "nobody is forcing you", you are ignoring the fact that they would be forcing a problem on me that would be larger than if I were banned from making phone calls.
So yes. They would be forcing an issue on me that would be larger than if they banned me from making phone calls.
> ignoring the fact that "the phone network"
Phone systems have fallen under utilities laws since before the internet existed. Therefore the analogy to phone calls is relevant.
You can look at home phone line systems. A home phone lines, that gives zero internet access, still falls under utilities laws.
Are you aware that a landline, that gives zero internet access, would still have to follow utilities laws? Just want to make sure you are aware of that.
> meets the definition of a utility
A perfectly reasonable thing to do is compare it to how much a problem it would be to switch from a different utility.
A landline, that has no internet access, is a utility. It falls under utilities laws, even if the singular only thing that it does, is make phone calls, without any internet access. Phone calls, without internet, is a utility.
And switching away from the system that only allows you to make phone calls, and has no internet, and is therefore a utility, would be easier than switching away from facebook.