8 ms·

This isn't about government. Facebook is a corporation, it owns the platform, it decides what gets contained on its property (subject to applicable laws, of cou

This isn't about government. Facebook is a corporation, it owns the platform, it decides what gets contained on its property (subject to applicable laws, of course, but not confined to only those laws). By signing up, you agree to their control over the platform. Control could be the bare minimum required by law, could be mercilessly removing any and all controversial speech - that's their discretion, just like it's completely your discretion whether to log on or to buzz off. They'll censor at whatever level works best for their core business of selling your attention to advertisers. Outside of applicable laws, you have no "rights" on this private platform you're provisionally allowed access to, and any attempt to sugar-coat that fact is just corporate PR-speak to avoid needless user attrition.

n0nc3 6y ago
This is an extremely lazy argument. Our generation has seen entire sectors of the economy subsumed within monopolies. The consolidation is unprecedented in the modern era. These monopolies have a degree of political influence that makes them hard to distinguish from government in anything but a formal legal sense. We have seen what the financial sector has chosen to do with its political influence. Why would we expect anything different from new media companies like Facebook? People need to stop and ask themselves if the core enlightenment principles of toleration, free expression, and free association are worth protecting. Once abandoned, they will not be easy to resurrect.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  Facebook and co. don't have monopolies on places where you can voice your opinion. Blogs still exist. Newspapers exist (even very extremists ones). Telegram exists, forums exist, etc. What Facebook and co. may have a monopoly on is channels of mass outreach. However, I don't think that there is or should be a right for your opinion to be widely disseminated by a third party.
  - n0nc3 6y ago
    I would say that Facebook is similar to a 18th century tavern. It's a place where people meet and talk. Fortunately for 18th century humans, there were many pub owners who exercised varying degrees of control over the activities of their patrons. Some banned radical politics, and some did not. In our present era of concentrated control, we have a small handful of pubs controlled by a similarly small number of wealthy oligarchs. Recall that the Green Dragon tavern was the unofficial headquarters of the American revolution.
  - derefr 6y ago
    > However, I don't think that there is or should be a right for your opinion to be widely disseminated by a third party. Maybe not, but when it comes to politics, unequal access to wide dissemination can be harmful to the democratic process. For any given country, either all parties or no parties should be able to post to Facebook—but certainly not some parties but not others.
    - Tainnor 6y ago
      No. If the NSDAP still existed (let's leave aside the fact that this would be illegal in itself), they should not be allowed to post their drivel to FB. Unequal access to wide dissemination is already a given btw. It depends in part on how much money you have.
      - derefr 6y ago
        I mean, I agree with the specific case, but I really don't see how entirely disenfranchising a political party for the views they usually espouse isn't a slippery slope that leads to non-democratic results (i.e. major parties being silenced; or one government being arbitrarily declared "legitimate" while another is declared "illegitimate.") Note: I'm not talking about censorship of individual posts they make for the views expressed in those posts. That's what Facebook was doing here, and I fully support that. (I'm from Canada; the concept is enshrined in law here!) I'm just talking about the idea that you probably don't want third parties like Facebook to be responsible for deciding whether to censor people, rather the much "safer" question of whether to censor individual posts. Especially when those people are current political candidates, and the people calling for their de-platforming are people opposed to their election, who are perfectly willing to libel them if it silences them at a time crucial for swinging an election. Facebook, unlike a government, does not have a concept of due process, and so is not equipped to deal with complaints from people who have motivations (like swinging an election) strong enough to be willing to "take it in the chin" for libelling someone, as long as their libel causes the desired de-platforming effect at just the right time. This is why we tend to want censorship to be a legal matter: courts have well-built, well-thought-out mechanisms to allow the recipient of a complaint against them to fight back. Meanwhile, what kind of arbitration system does Facebook have? Or, more abstractly, what kind of arbitration system are they required to have? Are there any requirements at all, for how Facebook and other networks should work with people, when others are asking for them to be de-platformed?
  - dntrkv 6y ago
    Do you think this argument applies to Google Search as well? Because if Google began deciding which blogs, newspapers, etc align with their version of truth, those entities and their audiences would disappear almost overnight. I think it's easy to hold this opinion when the views silenced are not your own.
    - Tainnor 6y ago
      > I think it's easy to hold this opinion when the views silenced are not your own. It's also really easy to be a "free speech" absolutist[1] when you're not personally being persecuted. As others have already mentioned ITT, there is a legal argument to be made that most opinions can be expressed in some form, but there is neither a legal argument to be made that they can be expressed through a particular medium, nor is there a moral argument to be made that every opinion is equally worthy of defense. It's not about the question whether Google censoring LGBT content would be technically illegal, or violate "freedom of speech" - I think neither of these are necessarily true - but it would be morally wrong[2] and thus worthy of outrage. [1] By that I mean people who think that "freedom of speech" means that you should have a right to speak your mind in every context without any repercussions. Freedom of speech is important, but so is protection from persecution, or the trustworthiness of reputable sources etc. [2] The only way in which it wouldn't be morally wrong is if they decided e.g. to ban all political content altogether or something similar.
  - rosmax_1337 6y ago
    The "start a blog"-argument really falls short when CloudFlare began terminating hate, you know?
    - Tainnor 6y ago
      It's really, really easy to find blogs on the internet absolutely filled with hate speech and extremist views.
      - rosmax_1337 6y ago
        The one which became very (?) popular and widespread was shut down.
        scythe 6y ago
        >The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology. Don't attack Cloudflare and Cloudflare won't terminate you. That's not censorship, it's self-defense.
        rosmax_1337 6y ago
        That's just a fortunate excuse in that scenario.
- Bjartr 6y ago
  Free speech guarantees a voice, not an audience
- scythe 6y ago
  Facebook is not a monopoly. Is there an alternative social media? No, but that makes it a monopsony, since you work for Facebook by using the site, and they pay you in cat pictures. Facebook's business is ads, and its competitors are Google and television. Facebook doesn't merely allow sharing information, it facilitates it -- worse, it selectively facilitates information whose availability is useful to Facebook, not to you. Facebook spends billions of dollars developing algorithms to control what you see on Facebook. Where in the "free expression" handbook does it mention that newsfeed posts which support the bottom line shall be seen more often than those that don't? This idea, that anything that happens on Facebook has anything to do with "free expression" or open, unmediated communication between acquaintances, is the first thing that we need to get rid of. When people stop believing that, they might use Facebook much less -- which would be a good thing!
- triceratops 6y ago
  You've pointed out the underlying disease yourself but you're only proposing to fix the symptoms.
censorshipsci 6y ago
I don’t think that’s quite true. Isn’t Facebook protected from liability in a way that something in the physical world like, say, a theme park isn’t?
- pfisch 6y ago
  If customers go inside a theme park and start spouting off about crisis actors and that talk incites someone to engage in violence outside of the theme park, the theme park is not liable for that.
- mulmen 6y ago
  No, they are not. Facebook and theme parks have the same First Amendment rights. Here are a couple of good explanations. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred...
konjin 6y ago
Funny how this argument is only put forward for cases in which the author agrees with the censorship. If facebook tomorrow banned all LGBT content I have a feeling "it's a private company" would not be an acceptable defense for anyone currently using it. In short you're using the most in vogue fallacy of 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
- Spivak 6y ago
  But this argument has zero nuance. You have to meet the parent where their line is actually drawn. Facebook is still subject to laws despite being a private company. "Facebook is allowed to host or refuse to host any subset of legal speech so long as refusals doesn't target any protected classes or otherwise violate US laws." I still think you can argue your position from here but there is a perfectly defensible argument for why banning LGBT content would be stopped while banning puppy videos would be allowed.
  - disruptalot 6y ago
    "banning LGBT content" entirely is the wrong argument here. There could be a perfectly reasonable arguments for why a specific piece of LGBT content would be banned. At which point you will hear the "It's a private company" proponents switch up the line and argue how it's not right.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > There could be a perfectly reasonable arguments for why a specific piece of LGBT content would be banned. At which point you will hear the "It's a private company" proponents switch up the line and argue how it's not right. The thing is, "its not right" and "its not within Facebook's right to free speech and is instead a violation of someone else's free speech" are two different things. The people arguing "its a private company" are generally not responding to arguments that Facebooks moderation decisions are merely wrong, but to arguments that they are violation of others' free speech rights rather than exercises of Facebook's free speech rights.
kaba0 6y ago
That’s a bad take. If facebook would be your ordinary pop&mom shop, you would be right. But as it stands, it is currently used as the only news’ source, communication method for a great majority of many countries’ residents - at which point it should not be exempt of questioning what their algorithm places in front of everyone - as it demonstratebly changes people’s biases/opinion on important topics.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Where do you draw the line on size to be subject to different rules? Who defines what “important topics” are?
- kspacewalk2 6y ago
  That call for regulation sounds as far from a 'freedom of speech' argument as can possibly be. You're simply calling for different criteria for censorship of content - or for letting the government decide on the criteria, which in fact would be a straightforward violation of the spirit and letter of most freedom of speech laws/constitutional clauses around the free world.
centimeter 6y ago
> it decides what gets contained on its property HN loves this argument until it comes to bakeries that don't want to bake gay wedding cakes.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Political speech is not protected. Sexual orientation is. Please debate the actual argument instead of a tired straw man.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > Political speech is not protected. Sexual orientation is. In what fucking world does political speech not deserve at least as much legal protection as being homosexual? In any case, you're illustrating my point perfectly - it's all about "businesses have the right to exclude customers" until the customer happens to be someone HN likes, at which point the goalposts move wildly.
    - mulmen 6y ago
      You’re free to express your political opinions. Everyone else is free to say how they feel, or say nothing at all. That’s politics. Marriage equality was about equal treatment under the law. It was debated and decided and passed. You can’t generalize that to your imagined right to troll Twitter.
      - centimeter 6y ago
        You’re either too whack to keep track of what we’re talking about or you’re intentionally going off topic. The question is: do businesses have the right to reject customers? If the context is political speech (which is critically important and deserves the most extreme legal protection), HN says “you’re fucked, Jack, business rules!” If the context is gay marriage (which, saying this as a gay man, is not nearly as fundamentally important as free speech) HN says “fuck those businesses, they can’t kick you out!”
disruptalot 6y ago
This interpretation of a platform turns Facebook into a publisher (section 230). Meaning, there is no limit to how much Facebook is obliged to curate it's content. Down this line, very quickly facebook becomes useless as an open communication mechanism.
mola 6y ago
That's very naive. Facebook works very closely with governments and have big interests that may coincide with some despot interest. Which means they are in a position to silence opposition as a favor for some government.
- kspacewalk2 6y ago
  The correct response to that is to limit what governments can demand/request, not what Facebook ought to be able to do with its platform.
brobdingnagians 6y ago
I agree, to an extent. I've always defended private property rights to the utmost. The difficulty is that the government is now so heavily involved in the military-industrial complex and now something like a military-social complex and regulating as well as benefiting in massive ways from private industry. In some ways, the mega corporations are becoming blurred extensions of government and start to do the dirty work of government. I think this has become a way for the government to get around restrictions and Constitutional principles by simply using private corporations to infringe on rights which they heavily influence. This is becoming a major issue for preserving rights, since some rights are becoming meaningless in private when you can't go outside or associate or even start a competitor because of the regulation landscape. Other rights are infringed "just enough" to discourage competition, then the large players get cajoled into doing what is desired. But to correct that, my preferred solution would be to eliminate corporations entirely. Eliminate the power structures that allow such massive accumulation of wealth and power and the legal protections that let people think they are not personally responsible. The legal framework would need to adjust, but I think society would find itself massively improved when personal responsibility and rights were restored.
commandlinefan 6y ago
> GoDaddy [insert any other domain registrar] is a corporation, it owns the platform, it decides what domains are allowed to be registered on its property (subject to applicable laws, of course, but not confined to only those laws) > AT&T [insert any other carrier] is a corporation, it owns the platform, it decides what traffic is allowed on its property (subject to applicable laws, of course, but not confined to only those laws) See the problem?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  No. All I see is a strawman.
- kspacewalk2 6y ago
  I see no problem whatsoever. In the first case, I am in full agreement - of course GoDaddy decides, and ought to decide, what domains are allowed to be registered on its property. In the second case, the correct solution is to change the applicable laws - enshrine net neutrality into law in a constitutionally valid manner, and Bob's your uncle.

n0nc3 6y ago

This is an extremely lazy argument. Our generation has seen entire sectors of the economy subsumed within monopolies. The consolidation is unprecedented in the modern era. These monopolies have a degree of political influence that makes them hard to distinguish from government in anything but a formal legal sense. We have seen what the financial sector has chosen to do with its political influence. Why would we expect anything different from new media companies like Facebook? People need to stop and ask themselves if the core enlightenment principles of toleration, free expression, and free association are worth protecting. Once abandoned, they will not be easy to resurrect.

Tainnor 6y ago
Facebook and co. don't have monopolies on places where you can voice your opinion. Blogs still exist. Newspapers exist (even very extremists ones). Telegram exists, forums exist, etc. What Facebook and co. may have a monopoly on is channels of mass outreach. However, I don't think that there is or should be a right for your opinion to be widely disseminated by a third party.
- n0nc3 6y ago
  I would say that Facebook is similar to a 18th century tavern. It's a place where people meet and talk. Fortunately for 18th century humans, there were many pub owners who exercised varying degrees of control over the activities of their patrons. Some banned radical politics, and some did not. In our present era of concentrated control, we have a small handful of pubs controlled by a similarly small number of wealthy oligarchs. Recall that the Green Dragon tavern was the unofficial headquarters of the American revolution.
- derefr 6y ago
  > However, I don't think that there is or should be a right for your opinion to be widely disseminated by a third party. Maybe not, but when it comes to politics, unequal access to wide dissemination can be harmful to the democratic process. For any given country, either all parties or no parties should be able to post to Facebook—but certainly not some parties but not others.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    No. If the NSDAP still existed (let's leave aside the fact that this would be illegal in itself), they should not be allowed to post their drivel to FB. Unequal access to wide dissemination is already a given btw. It depends in part on how much money you have.
    - derefr 6y ago
      I mean, I agree with the specific case, but I really don't see how entirely disenfranchising a political party for the views they usually espouse isn't a slippery slope that leads to non-democratic results (i.e. major parties being silenced; or one government being arbitrarily declared "legitimate" while another is declared "illegitimate.") Note: I'm not talking about censorship of individual posts they make for the views expressed in those posts. That's what Facebook was doing here, and I fully support that. (I'm from Canada; the concept is enshrined in law here!) I'm just talking about the idea that you probably don't want third parties like Facebook to be responsible for deciding whether to censor people, rather the much "safer" question of whether to censor individual posts. Especially when those people are current political candidates, and the people calling for their de-platforming are people opposed to their election, who are perfectly willing to libel them if it silences them at a time crucial for swinging an election. Facebook, unlike a government, does not have a concept of due process, and so is not equipped to deal with complaints from people who have motivations (like swinging an election) strong enough to be willing to "take it in the chin" for libelling someone, as long as their libel causes the desired de-platforming effect at just the right time. This is why we tend to want censorship to be a legal matter: courts have well-built, well-thought-out mechanisms to allow the recipient of a complaint against them to fight back. Meanwhile, what kind of arbitration system does Facebook have? Or, more abstractly, what kind of arbitration system are they required to have? Are there any requirements at all, for how Facebook and other networks should work with people, when others are asking for them to be de-platformed?
- dntrkv 6y ago
  Do you think this argument applies to Google Search as well? Because if Google began deciding which blogs, newspapers, etc align with their version of truth, those entities and their audiences would disappear almost overnight. I think it's easy to hold this opinion when the views silenced are not your own.
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    > I think it's easy to hold this opinion when the views silenced are not your own. It's also really easy to be a "free speech" absolutist[1] when you're not personally being persecuted. As others have already mentioned ITT, there is a legal argument to be made that most opinions can be expressed in some form, but there is neither a legal argument to be made that they can be expressed through a particular medium, nor is there a moral argument to be made that every opinion is equally worthy of defense. It's not about the question whether Google censoring LGBT content would be technically illegal, or violate "freedom of speech" - I think neither of these are necessarily true - but it would be morally wrong[2] and thus worthy of outrage. [1] By that I mean people who think that "freedom of speech" means that you should have a right to speak your mind in every context without any repercussions. Freedom of speech is important, but so is protection from persecution, or the trustworthiness of reputable sources etc. [2] The only way in which it wouldn't be morally wrong is if they decided e.g. to ban all political content altogether or something similar.
- rosmax_1337 6y ago
  The "start a blog"-argument really falls short when CloudFlare began terminating hate, you know?
  - Tainnor 6y ago
    It's really, really easy to find blogs on the internet absolutely filled with hate speech and extremist views.
    - rosmax_1337 6y ago
      The one which became very (?) popular and widespread was shut down.
      - scythe 6y ago
        >The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology. Don't attack Cloudflare and Cloudflare won't terminate you. That's not censorship, it's self-defense.
        rosmax_1337 6y ago
        That's just a fortunate excuse in that scenario.
Bjartr 6y ago
Free speech guarantees a voice, not an audience
scythe 6y ago
Facebook is not a monopoly. Is there an alternative social media? No, but that makes it a monopsony, since you work for Facebook by using the site, and they pay you in cat pictures. Facebook's business is ads, and its competitors are Google and television. Facebook doesn't merely allow sharing information, it facilitates it -- worse, it selectively facilitates information whose availability is useful to Facebook, not to you. Facebook spends billions of dollars developing algorithms to control what you see on Facebook. Where in the "free expression" handbook does it mention that newsfeed posts which support the bottom line shall be seen more often than those that don't? This idea, that anything that happens on Facebook has anything to do with "free expression" or open, unmediated communication between acquaintances, is the first thing that we need to get rid of. When people stop believing that, they might use Facebook much less -- which would be a good thing!
triceratops 6y ago
You've pointed out the underlying disease yourself but you're only proposing to fix the symptoms.

censorshipsci 6y ago

I don’t think that’s quite true. Isn’t Facebook protected from liability in a way that something in the physical world like, say, a theme park isn’t?

pfisch 6y ago
If customers go inside a theme park and start spouting off about crisis actors and that talk incites someone to engage in violence outside of the theme park, the theme park is not liable for that.
mulmen 6y ago
No, they are not. Facebook and theme parks have the same First Amendment rights. Here are a couple of good explanations. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred...

konjin 6y ago

Funny how this argument is only put forward for cases in which the author agrees with the censorship. If facebook tomorrow banned all LGBT content I have a feeling "it's a private company" would not be an acceptable defense for anyone currently using it. In short you're using the most in vogue fallacy of 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy

Spivak 6y ago
But this argument has zero nuance. You have to meet the parent where their line is actually drawn. Facebook is still subject to laws despite being a private company. "Facebook is allowed to host or refuse to host any subset of legal speech so long as refusals doesn't target any protected classes or otherwise violate US laws." I still think you can argue your position from here but there is a perfectly defensible argument for why banning LGBT content would be stopped while banning puppy videos would be allowed.
- disruptalot 6y ago
  "banning LGBT content" entirely is the wrong argument here. There could be a perfectly reasonable arguments for why a specific piece of LGBT content would be banned. At which point you will hear the "It's a private company" proponents switch up the line and argue how it's not right.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > There could be a perfectly reasonable arguments for why a specific piece of LGBT content would be banned. At which point you will hear the "It's a private company" proponents switch up the line and argue how it's not right. The thing is, "its not right" and "its not within Facebook's right to free speech and is instead a violation of someone else's free speech" are two different things. The people arguing "its a private company" are generally not responding to arguments that Facebooks moderation decisions are merely wrong, but to arguments that they are violation of others' free speech rights rather than exercises of Facebook's free speech rights.

kaba0 6y ago

That’s a bad take. If facebook would be your ordinary pop&mom shop, you would be right. But as it stands, it is currently used as the only news’ source, communication method for a great majority of many countries’ residents - at which point it should not be exempt of questioning what their algorithm places in front of everyone - as it demonstratebly changes people’s biases/opinion on important topics.

mulmen 6y ago
Where do you draw the line on size to be subject to different rules? Who defines what “important topics” are?
kspacewalk2 6y ago
That call for regulation sounds as far from a 'freedom of speech' argument as can possibly be. You're simply calling for different criteria for censorship of content - or for letting the government decide on the criteria, which in fact would be a straightforward violation of the spirit and letter of most freedom of speech laws/constitutional clauses around the free world.

centimeter 6y ago

> it decides what gets contained on its property HN loves this argument until it comes to bakeries that don't want to bake gay wedding cakes.

mulmen 6y ago
Political speech is not protected. Sexual orientation is. Please debate the actual argument instead of a tired straw man.
- centimeter 6y ago
  > Political speech is not protected. Sexual orientation is. In what fucking world does political speech not deserve at least as much legal protection as being homosexual? In any case, you're illustrating my point perfectly - it's all about "businesses have the right to exclude customers" until the customer happens to be someone HN likes, at which point the goalposts move wildly.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    You’re free to express your political opinions. Everyone else is free to say how they feel, or say nothing at all. That’s politics. Marriage equality was about equal treatment under the law. It was debated and decided and passed. You can’t generalize that to your imagined right to troll Twitter.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      You’re either too whack to keep track of what we’re talking about or you’re intentionally going off topic. The question is: do businesses have the right to reject customers? If the context is political speech (which is critically important and deserves the most extreme legal protection), HN says “you’re fucked, Jack, business rules!” If the context is gay marriage (which, saying this as a gay man, is not nearly as fundamentally important as free speech) HN says “fuck those businesses, they can’t kick you out!”

disruptalot 6y ago

This interpretation of a platform turns Facebook into a publisher (section 230). Meaning, there is no limit to how much Facebook is obliged to curate it's content. Down this line, very quickly facebook becomes useless as an open communication mechanism.

mola 6y ago

That's very naive. Facebook works very closely with governments and have big interests that may coincide with some despot interest. Which means they are in a position to silence opposition as a favor for some government.

kspacewalk2 6y ago
The correct response to that is to limit what governments can demand/request, not what Facebook ought to be able to do with its platform.

brobdingnagians 6y ago

I agree, to an extent. I've always defended private property rights to the utmost. The difficulty is that the government is now so heavily involved in the military-industrial complex and now something like a military-social complex and regulating as well as benefiting in massive ways from private industry. In some ways, the mega corporations are becoming blurred extensions of government and start to do the dirty work of government. I think this has become a way for the government to get around restrictions and Constitutional principles by simply using private corporations to infringe on rights which they heavily influence. This is becoming a major issue for preserving rights, since some rights are becoming meaningless in private when you can't go outside or associate or even start a competitor because of the regulation landscape. Other rights are infringed "just enough" to discourage competition, then the large players get cajoled into doing what is desired. But to correct that, my preferred solution would be to eliminate corporations entirely. Eliminate the power structures that allow such massive accumulation of wealth and power and the legal protections that let people think they are not personally responsible. The legal framework would need to adjust, but I think society would find itself massively improved when personal responsibility and rights were restored.

commandlinefan 6y ago

> GoDaddy [insert any other domain registrar] is a corporation, it owns the platform, it decides what domains are allowed to be registered on its property (subject to applicable laws, of course, but not confined to only those laws) > AT&T [insert any other carrier] is a corporation, it owns the platform, it decides what traffic is allowed on its property (subject to applicable laws, of course, but not confined to only those laws) See the problem?

Pfhreak 6y ago
No. All I see is a strawman.
kspacewalk2 6y ago
I see no problem whatsoever. In the first case, I am in full agreement - of course GoDaddy decides, and ought to decide, what domains are allowed to be registered on its property. In the second case, the correct solution is to change the applicable laws - enshrine net neutrality into law in a constitutionally valid manner, and Bob's your uncle.