3 ms·

>Should Verizon and T-Mobile have free speech rights too then? Try reading the whole paragraph (emphasis added): >particularly if they in some way are signifi

by xoa 6y ago

>Should Verizon and T-Mobile have free speech rights too then? Try reading the whole paragraph (emphasis added): >particularly if they in some way are significantly making use of government power themselves (limited spectrum allocation for cellular carriers for example Come on. >Why should they allow literal Nazis to communicate over their infrastructure? Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common. They should in turn operate as common carriers.

umvi 6y ago
> Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common. They should in turn operate as common carriers. Hmm, not always though. I use WiFi 99% of the time, including for voice calling, which isn't using any government-allocated cellular spectrum. So in my case, T-Mobile should be able to filter packets going through their servers and censor undesirable speech, right? Their servers, their ToS, right?
- takeda 6y ago
  I think you got confused, we are talking about booting people off of their service. I don't know how common carriers operate, and perhaps they can't kick you off. Also their government allocated bands don't change if you use "WiFi 99% of the time" they still have the monopoly. As for packet filtering, that's Net Neutrality issue, which last time I checked the right was against and successfully allowed it (except for states that brought their own laws to replace it).
diebeforei485 6y ago
Why does it only apply to things that are physically limited? Isn't that just a bad analogy? Other things are limited too. People's time and attention are limited, and the app stores have a pretty strong duopoly on those. In theory you could print pamphlets and drop them door to door, but come on.
stale2002 6y ago
> Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common Sorry dude. You don't believe in free speech. You are contradicting yourself.

by xoa 6y ago

umvi 6y ago

> Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common. They should in turn operate as common carriers. Hmm, not always though. I use WiFi 99% of the time, including for voice calling, which isn't using any government-allocated cellular spectrum. So in my case, T-Mobile should be able to filter packets going through their servers and censor undesirable speech, right? Their servers, their ToS, right?

takeda 6y ago
I think you got confused, we are talking about booting people off of their service. I don't know how common carriers operate, and perhaps they can't kick you off. Also their government allocated bands don't change if you use "WiFi 99% of the time" they still have the monopoly. As for packet filtering, that's Net Neutrality issue, which last time I checked the right was against and successfully allowed it (except for states that brought their own laws to replace it).

diebeforei485 6y ago

Why does it only apply to things that are physically limited? Isn't that just a bad analogy? Other things are limited too. People's time and attention are limited, and the app stores have a pretty strong duopoly on those. In theory you could print pamphlets and drop them door to door, but come on.

stale2002 6y ago

> Because they're making use of a government granted monopoly on a physically limited common Sorry dude. You don't believe in free speech. You are contradicting yourself.