Why can't the phone company listen to private conversations? What does being paid have to do with their enforcement of their own property rights? Couldn't they just say in the EULA "we will listen to your calls and disconnect you if you say something we don't like"?
There are laws against eavesdropping on private electronic communications.
> What does being paid have to do with their enforcement of their own property rights?
Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations that patronizing a free/ad-supported website does not. In other words, payment creates a contract.
> Couldn't they just say in the EULA "we will listen to your calls and disconnect you if you say something we don't like"?
I suppose in theory, though it would be difficult to show that all parties to the call agreed to such a EULA.
> There are laws against eavesdropping on private electronic communications.
Likewise, people are discussing reform of the laws that govern the behavior of giant media properties. Surely you agree those laws (against eavesdropping) were passed for a reason and are not arbitrary?
> Because paying for a service establishes certain rights and expectations that patronizing a free/ad-supported website does not. In other words, payment creates a contract.
People are not basing their criticisms on the violation of a contract but on the public good of the free exchange of information.
> I suppose in theory, though it would be difficult to show that all parties to the call agreed to such a EULA.
"By continuing to stay on the line, you agree to the end user license agreement available in full online or by mail upon request."
> Surely you agree those laws (against eavesdropping) were passed for a reason and are not arbitrary?
I'm puzzled by the question. My position on wiretapping laws is beside the point.
> People are not basing their criticisms on the violation of a contract but on the public good of the free exchange of information.
Again, this is puzzling because it doesn't seem related to the topic at hand. You asked a direct question (why is paying different?) and I gave a direct answer (because contracts).
> "By continuing to stay on the line, you agree to the end user license agreement available in full online or by mail upon request."
Doesn't cover minors, who can't consent to binding contracts, and I doubt it would be popular with customers anyway. Can you imagine having that play every time you make or receive a phone call?
> I'm puzzled by the question. My position on wiretapping laws is beside the point.
No, it isn't. Spartan-S63 seem to be advocating [0] YouTube can moderate their platform however they like. souprock suggests [1] that same logic allows the phone company to disconnect anyone who criticizes the phone company. You say [2] that doesn't apply because that would require breaking the law. I'm observing that the law you refer to places limits on the phone company, which is what people are suggesting with respect to YouTube. Section 230 reforms might limit the ability of YouTube to do what they want with their platform, just like the laws governing telecom utilities were written in order to balance the interests of the public and the consumer against the interest of the telecom company to do what they want with their property.
> Again, this is puzzling because it doesn't seem related to the topic at hand. You asked a direct question (why is paying different?) and I gave a direct answer (because contracts).
I'm asking why you think paying or not is relevant to the issue of section 230 reform. People aren't advocating for the reform of section 230 because their contracts were violated. They're advocating for the reform of section 230 because they believe its harmful for companies like YouTube and Facebook to exert this much influence over the discourse without any liability. Payment or lack of a contract is immaterial.
> Doesn't cover minors, who can't consent to binding contracts, and I doubt it would be popular with customers anyway. Can you imagine having that play every time you make or receive a phone call?
Yet GDPR exists and there are popup windows on many webpages because of the legality of the tracking measures employed by advertising companies.
