>I don't see how much more open and free (as in speech) it can get without taking away someone else's ability to do what they want with their computer. Do you

>I don't see how much more open and free (as in speech) it can get without taking away someone else's ability to do what they want with their computer. Do you understand why some of us are viewing this problem through an anti-trust or public utility lens now? In other words, "I don't understand how much more open and free (as in electricity) it can get without taking away someone else's ability to do what they want with their power plant." It's really, really unfortunate that this debate was triggered for what are at their base partisan political reasons. Because this is a debate we should have had with cooler heads, about what these services actually represent for human society and how government should interact with this technology. Instead, everyone is drawing a line in the sand based on their politics (not saying you are doing this, but others clearly are). And look, yeah, I get it. "Electricity" is not "speech". But when you need electricity and you need computers to transmit speech in the modern era ... well I guess I just see it as six of one and a half dozen of the other.