This rule would functionally kill small Internet service provision and build the biggest moat around the incumbent providers that has ever been handed to them.
Do you mean because those 'small Internet service providers' would be included in his 'larger than $MARKET_SHARE' group, or because it would mean no one was kicked out of the incumbent services and therefore there would be fewer new customers available?
I mean because a company tends to explode from "smaller than $MARKET_SHARE" to "larger than $MARKET_SHARE" in a discontinuous fashion. So since a company can't really predict when it will happen, every company providing service would need to prep from the ground up to provide the described level of relatively non-automated high-touch support this proposal describes. It'd raise the cost to build a startup.
... not to imply it's a bad idea; there's no golden rule that says an ecosystem of millions of competing companies is always a superior alternative to a few well-regulated players. It's just important to note the hidden costs.
If you have automated rule enforcement, then you already have a formal specification of your rules, and informing the user of what rule they have broken should be trivial.
If you have humans doing the bans manually, then you already have a human in the loop.
The appeals process mandate is the part that would add a lot of cost that doesn't currently exist. It puts a human in the loop on the back side of the automated process. And once you add an appeals process, you can expect everybody to attempt to go through it... False positives will of course appeal, and bad actors have no disincentive to appeal for the simple sake of gumming up the system for fun.
I think this limitation is an artifact of the fact that the proposal is an idea being tossed out on social media. A real law would have some sort of grace period. That grace period could be chosen arbitrarily, it should be set such that any well-run company would have time to respond.
Actually I think you're right, yeah. I don't know why your original comment is being downvoted. I suppose it testifies to the fact that comments are downvoted either because they're too stupid or too smart for the audience.
Okay, how about instead of coming into effect immediately after reaching some market share level, it comes into effect 1 year after you first reach that level?
That's the thing about being an Internet startup... You never know when you're going to explode and suddenly jump from a ten-thousand-user service to a milliion-user service.
So supporting this would require a company to take all manner of new precautions that companies currently don't (circuit-breaker on the new account creation system? But then your growth stalls and your potential customers go to a competitor instead, and you don't blow up into a YouTube or a Twitter like YouTube and Twitter did).
Grace period - A grace period is a period immediately after the deadline for an obligation during which a late fee, or other action that would have been taken as a result of failing to meet the deadline, is waived provided that the obligation is satisfied during the grace period. In other words, it is a length of time during which rules or penalties are waived or deferred. Grace periods can range from a number of minutes to a number of days or longer, and can apply in situations including arrival at a job, paying a bill, or meeting a government or legal requirement.
In law, a grace period is a time period during which a particular rule exceptionally does not apply, or only partially applies.
... which may, indeed, be the right solution.