3 ms·

If social media becomes a common carrier, but ISPs do not, can Facebook just host their service on their own ISP and block unwanted users at the ISP level? "It'

If social media becomes a common carrier, but ISPs do not, can Facebook just host their service on their own ISP and block unwanted users at the ISP level? "It's not Facebook blocking the user, it's the ISP, which happens to be the only ISP we host Facebook on." All just poking holes in the idea that social media can be a common carrier while the ISPs are not. Somehow the literal carrier avoided becoming the common carrier.

temp8964 5y ago
How can the ISP ban Facebook accounts, if they are separated entities? Or do you mean the ISP bans Facebook urls related to certain accounts / posts? Not sure how this gonna work.
- tedunangst 5y ago
  Facebook allows anyone to sign up and access the site through user.facebook.com. All actual hosting is outsourced to NotFacebook ISP because the cloud. NotFacebook totally at their own discretion null routes baduser.facebook.com.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  Maybe Facebook's ISP of choice requires handing over the TLS private keys?
rcpt 5y ago
> just host their service on their own ISP Good luck
singlow 5y ago
That's not how laws work.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  Your right, this legal "hack" would probably be frowned upon by a judge, but it does demonstrate how silly it is that the literal carrier is not the one considered the "common carrier". It would be illegal for Facebook to arbitrarily prevent someone from accessing Facebook, and legal for Comcast to arbitrarily prevent someone from accessing Facebook. And back to my original proposal, if Facebook and Comcast came to some sort of deal, perhaps Comcast could block unwanted user on behalf of Facebook.
  - singlow 5y ago
    But Facebook cannot do through an agent what it is not allowed to do itself. Doesn't matter if the agent is a subsidiary or a partner.
supertrope 5y ago
Social media companies only invest enough in trial ISP networks to encourage faster speed by incumbents. Telecoms outsource physical operations and desperately want to get into value adds like media content, low quality app stores, e-security, and advertising. No one wants to move down the OSI layers into commodity services or capital intensive slogs.

temp8964 5y ago

How can the ISP ban Facebook accounts, if they are separated entities? Or do you mean the ISP bans Facebook urls related to certain accounts / posts? Not sure how this gonna work.

tedunangst 5y ago
Facebook allows anyone to sign up and access the site through user.facebook.com. All actual hosting is outsourced to NotFacebook ISP because the cloud. NotFacebook totally at their own discretion null routes baduser.facebook.com.
Buttons840 5y ago
Maybe Facebook's ISP of choice requires handing over the TLS private keys?

rcpt 5y ago

> just host their service on their own ISP Good luck

singlow 5y ago

That's not how laws work.

Buttons840 5y ago
Your right, this legal "hack" would probably be frowned upon by a judge, but it does demonstrate how silly it is that the literal carrier is not the one considered the "common carrier". It would be illegal for Facebook to arbitrarily prevent someone from accessing Facebook, and legal for Comcast to arbitrarily prevent someone from accessing Facebook. And back to my original proposal, if Facebook and Comcast came to some sort of deal, perhaps Comcast could block unwanted user on behalf of Facebook.
- singlow 5y ago
  But Facebook cannot do through an agent what it is not allowed to do itself. Doesn't matter if the agent is a subsidiary or a partner.

supertrope 5y ago

Social media companies only invest enough in trial ISP networks to encourage faster speed by incumbents. Telecoms outsource physical operations and desperately want to get into value adds like media content, low quality app stores, e-security, and advertising. No one wants to move down the OSI layers into commodity services or capital intensive slogs.