> If instead the ISP was doing that filtering, I wouldn't be able to discuss it anywhere online If Twitter, Facebook, and Google all blocked some content, the

> If instead the ISP was doing that filtering, I wouldn't be able to discuss it anywhere online If Twitter, Facebook, and Google all blocked some content, the odds of it being found is way less than if a single ISP blocked it. Yes, you, personally would not be able to see it if it was blocked and you had that ISP. But collectively, the content is still there. Facebook and Twitter are 90% of social media and have network effects making alternatives implausible. They're no different than Standard Oil and trains were. ISP like trains shovel 1s and 0s around (raw stuff). But people also particularly cared about getting content or oil (specific stuff). Twitter and Facebook have a monopoly on that "specific stuff" and with legal indemnity to boot. Who cares if you have the capacity to transport oil if you can't actually get it delivered? Who cares if you can get 1s and 0s online if you can't communicate with anybody about relevant content? As an aside, remember when it was social "networking" and not social "media"? Let's not pretend that these folks didn't want to play the content publishing game. It's the only way to funnel clicks into ad revenue.