4 ms·
Seems eminently fair and reasonable to me. Elsever got a court to order a gross violation of net neutrality. The ISP had no interest or desire to implement bl
by bigiain 8y ago
Seems eminently fair and reasonable to me.
Elsever got a court to order a gross violation of net neutrality.
The ISP had no interest or desire to implement blocking of any sort. Once it's hand is forced via legal means, it needs to obtain that capability - and using it with discretion as a protest is a perfect demonstration as to why they should _not_ have that capability.
- writepub 8y agoAbout ideals and philosophies - they only matter when pushed to their limits. Free speech only matters when the said speech is disagreeable, ISP power only matters when the ISP disagrees with a website. Yes - we all approve of the ISP's action, but this instance was in our favor. Will the next be against? Power begets corruption.
- stale2002 8y agoThen perhaps ISPs shouldn't be blocking any websites at all. Unfortunately the courts have made this impossible though. In order to get net neutrality back, they would have to reverse that court decision that forced websites to be blocked.
- bigiain 8y ago"The next"? How about "one of the previous"??? https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/07/comcast-xfinity-paypal-net-neutrality/ https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/03/07/comcast-xfinity-... https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/133855251.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080213/133855251.shtml Banhof's stance is that they do not even want the capability to block websites. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with. It certainly means some speech with which I strongly disagree is protected as well as speech with which I do agree. ISPs should _not_ have this kind of power. Banhof do not want it, but since they're being forced into acquiring and using that capability, using it to protest against it seems eminently reasonable.