4 ms·
Sure it does. It undercuts their entire argument by making it look much more like a political stunt than any kind of serious action.
by bananabreakfast 5y ago
Sure it does.
It undercuts their entire argument by making it look much more like a political stunt than any kind of serious action.
- ttt0 5y agoISPs don't abuse their power like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. do.
- verall 5y agoThey absolutely do? ISPs frequently rate the top of most hated companies lists, and many Americans do not have access to more than 1 ISP offering (>=30mbit) high speed internet.
- awillen 5y agoComcast once charged me a $5 self-installation fee. As in I set up the equipment in my house and paid for the privilege. My other option was to not have internet.
- sumedh 5y agoCan someone who has the time and money sue Comcast in court for this fee? I believe a judge will say that fee is not reasonable.
- minsc__and__boo 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_shaping
- suifbwish 5y agoActually that is what is known as a red herring argument. Bringing up something unrelated saying that the original argument is invalidated because the same reasoning wasn’t applied to it is a common informal fallacy. Most legal documents have something related to severability which states that even if one part of the document is found to be unreasonable/illegal/illogical, it does not invalidate the rest of the document.
- minsc__and__boo 5y agoThat's not what a red herring is. They're calling out the logical inconsistency of the claims being made, and in turn questioning the genuineness of the speaker's motive.
- Covzire 5y agoI'm not aware of any ISP in the US that has terminated a customer's service for perfectly legal political statements.
- zerocrates 5y agoCertainly it has happened on the hosting side: connectivity, domain names, etc.
- minsc__and__boo 5y agoOutside of certain protected class situations, Freedom of Association allows anyone to terminate service irregardless of legality of political statements made on their own privately-owned platform. And no, political stance is not a protected class.
- pumaontheprowl 5y agoHence why Google needs to be made a public utility.
- minsc__and__boo 5y agoExcept search engines are not a necessary service for the public, which is what a public utility is. Reclassifying a privately owned business to restrict their freedom of association because you think they threaten your political views is autocratic behavior, not democratic.