33 ms·
To those who say this is OK but net neutrality is something that should be, why? If people can ban others for speech, because they're the ones providing the hos
by throwasnakes 8y ago
To those who say this is OK but net neutrality is something that should be, why? If people can ban others for speech, because they're the ones providing the hosting. Should ISPs not be able to throttle whoever they'd like for the same reason?
- alphabettsy 8y agoThis is not even a close comparison. In one case the owner is providing a space at no cost to users where they have many choices. In the other, a company is proving you a connection to the network and nothing more, but in exchange for payment and often with no other choices.
- mreome 8y agoThis is actually an argument that is sometime raised in regards to net neutrality. The difference between an ISP and a web host is that the former functions more as a utility (the debated common carrier classification). If they are a common carrier, the analogy would be the ISP is the power company and the web host is a land lord. The land lord can choose not to rent to someone for any reason other then the person belonging to a protected class. But the power company can't turn off their power as long as they keep paying. The distinction makes sense because you can find another land lord to rent from, or buy your own house (as you can find another web host, or become a web host). But you still have to get power from the, usually one, local electric company (as you have to get a connection to the internet from your, usually one, local ISP).