4 ms·

These services own their platform. So, they are justified in doing what they want right? Likewise, the ISPs own the infrastructure and they can do what they wi

These services own their platform. So, they are justified in doing what they want right? Likewise, the ISPs own the infrastructure and they can do what they wish as well. The Internet is not made up of public roadways. So what's the difference? I think it's just that you want the ISPs to not own the roads. If you separate what you personally want ISPs to be from the rest of your argument, I think you can see that the ISPs and these tech platforms are pretty much the same - they both own their product and should be able to do what they want to.

Spivak 9y ago
The difference I imagine is that YouTube is not infrastructure, they are a publisher that takes full responsibility for the content present on their site. It's not 'X's videos are hosted on YouTube' it's 'X is a YouTuber'. I think you would have a much stronger argument if someone like Amazon said you couldn't host gun videos on AWS.
tzs 9y ago
There are several differences between ISPs and websites. 1. ISPs generally require licenses or leases from the government in order to build and maintain their infrastructure. Wireless ISPs, for example, need to license RF spectrum. Wired ISPs generally need to run their wires on public land. You can't just start a new ISP, like you can a new website. 2. Broadband ISPs are generally monopolies or near monopolies in a given area, especially wired ISPs. This is related to #1. 3. Telecommunications services fall under the Telecommunications Acts of 1934 and 1996. Websites do not.