3 ms·
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 th
by Rebelgecko 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.
- 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.