3 ms·

Silly and retributory, and per the article a pretty clear violation of Washington State's net neutrality laws. But in context, probably not a bad thing for soc

Silly and retributory, and per the article a pretty clear violation of Washington State's net neutrality laws. But in context, probably not a bad thing for society.

X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago
> But in context, probably not a bad thing for society. Why do you say that?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bsaul 6y ago
  I guess this way maybe someone in california will realize it's not a great idea to censor people for their political views ?
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  Probably because Facebook and Twitter provide maybe about an ounce of utility for every ton of pure, unfiltered garbage.
specto 6y ago
Agreed! But an ISP should be a dumb pipe, so this is wrong.
- postalrat 6y ago
  It's their property right? Same arguments I hear for twitter, google, etc censoring.
  - tayo42 6y ago
    It's not if you consider being an isp like a utility. If the power company had a way to shut your power off anytime you tried to access a web site. I also disagree with what the other companies did in the first place is censoring. They're removing rule breakers. You can still share your political views, just don't organize and call for the government to be other thrown because you believe everything you read online. You wouldn't freak out because a child porn distribution platform was turned off and claim it's censored.
RyJones 6y ago
The ISP is based in Idaho.
- ojbyrne 6y ago
  It's confusing, but the article says the ISP "provides internet services to North Idaho and the Spokane area." Spokane is in WA.
  - steverb 6y ago
    And very near to the Idaho border.
- aaomidi 6y ago
  And operates in WA, so needs to follow their laws too.
BikiniPrince 6y ago
Usually, state net neutrality laws are there to prohibit the state from purchasing from entities that violet net neutrality. They don’t regulate transmission because that is federal territory. Now the article is slightly misleading because they didn’t block Twitter and Facebook globally. They only blocked traffic for those users that asked them to do so.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  They said they would block them for everyone initially. Washington's net neutrality law covers home service.[1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/first-state-net-neutrality-law-took-effect-today-countering-fcc-repeal/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/first-state-net-...
tomcam 6y ago
Will it be a bad thing for society when they come for your favorite causes next?

Silly and retributory, and per the article a pretty clear violation of Washington State's net neutrality laws. But in context, probably not a bad thing for society.

X6S1x6Okd1st 6y ago

> But in context, probably not a bad thing for society. Why do you say that?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bsaul 6y ago
I guess this way maybe someone in california will realize it's not a great idea to censor people for their political views ?
orthecreedence 6y ago
Probably because Facebook and Twitter provide maybe about an ounce of utility for every ton of pure, unfiltered garbage.

specto 6y ago

Agreed! But an ISP should be a dumb pipe, so this is wrong.

postalrat 6y ago
It's their property right? Same arguments I hear for twitter, google, etc censoring.
- tayo42 6y ago
  It's not if you consider being an isp like a utility. If the power company had a way to shut your power off anytime you tried to access a web site. I also disagree with what the other companies did in the first place is censoring. They're removing rule breakers. You can still share your political views, just don't organize and call for the government to be other thrown because you believe everything you read online. You wouldn't freak out because a child porn distribution platform was turned off and claim it's censored.

RyJones 6y ago

The ISP is based in Idaho.

ojbyrne 6y ago
It's confusing, but the article says the ISP "provides internet services to North Idaho and the Spokane area." Spokane is in WA.
- steverb 6y ago
  And very near to the Idaho border.
aaomidi 6y ago
And operates in WA, so needs to follow their laws too.

BikiniPrince 6y ago

Usually, state net neutrality laws are there to prohibit the state from purchasing from entities that violet net neutrality. They don’t regulate transmission because that is federal territory. Now the article is slightly misleading because they didn’t block Twitter and Facebook globally. They only blocked traffic for those users that asked them to do so.

pseudalopex 6y ago
They said they would block them for everyone initially. Washington's net neutrality law covers home service.[1] [1] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/first-state-net-neutrality-law-took-effect-today-countering-fcc-repeal/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/first-state-net-...

tomcam 6y ago

Will it be a bad thing for society when they come for your favorite causes next?