5 ms·
I am not following the logic here. Fighting censorship ... with more censorship ??????
by karmasimida 6y ago
I am not following the logic here. Fighting censorship ... with more censorship ??????
- balozi 6y agoWorks the same as fighting fascism with even more fascism.
- selimthegrim 6y agoRelevant Safely Endangered: https://me.me/i/youre-eating-liberal-ideology-safely-endangered-sweet-jesus-pooh4-thats-3442503 https://me.me/i/youre-eating-liberal-ideology-safely-endange...
- traveler01 6y agoHm... It's the US, nothing makes sense anymore.
- elpocko 6y agoHow is that censorship? It's a private company, they should be free to choose what kind of content they want to provide.
- henriquez 6y agoRight, and if Facebook and Twitter don’t like it they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and start their own ISPs!
- elpocko 6y agoLooks to me like this kind of reasoning will eventually go all the way up to "they can start their own society", and at some point, it will actually happen. surprised pikachu
- karmasimida 6y ago> It's a private company, they should be free to choose what kind of content they want to provide Censorship is just a classification of what they are doing. In both cases, it is selectively application of blocking of contents based on one's political believes. Calling them censorship is not an assessment whether they have a legal/illegal/legit/reasonable/unreasonable cause to carry out such acts. I just find this approach somewhat ironic.
- hundchenkatze 6y agoIt doesn't matter who's doing it, it's still censorship.
- Rebelgecko 6y agoIf a company doesn't want to distribute a certain type of content (whether it's for political reasons or because they genuinely think it's better for society that some voices aren't heard), they're under no obligation to do so.
- vageli 6y ago> If a company doesn't want to distribute a certain type of content (whether it's for political reasons or because they genuinely think it's better for society that some voices aren't heard), they're under no obligation to do so. I thought ISPs were classified as common carriers and thus are obligated? Or are we saying we _don't_ want net neutrality now?
- salawat 6y agoThat's the irony here. ISP's aren't common carriers anymore. Thanks Pai. /s So it's all good your ISP can do whatever.
- chopin24 6y agoThat’s not the case for states with Net Neutrality laws, according to the article. For the state of Washington, this move is illegal.
- markdown 6y agoISP's should be treated like utilities... dump pipes.
- PurpleFoxy 6y agoThey were before net neutrality was killed
- jackson1442 6y agoPersonally, I think this principle is limited in its application. Sure, Walmart may choose not to distribute specific products but at this point an ISP is essentially a utility, much like your water and electricity providers. As there is not much in the realm of choices for ISPs and many users are locked into contracts, this seems like an abuse of the power ISPs are holding. Thinking about it this way, what if you worked for Facebook or Twitter as WFH and they blocked these sites. What now, do you move? Get a new job? Suppose they also block VPN traffic as that is a known way around their blocking.