There's some discussion of that, but more on the user-facing side, not the in-house networks (which are also a feature of universities, government agencies, etc

There's some discussion of that, but more on the user-facing side, not the in-house networks (which are also a feature of universities, government agencies, etc.). > "Meanwhile, we have these big technology firms, that control the hardware, the software, and they run their own kangaroo courts that decide who wins and who loses. And there’s no way to appeal that or to have any insights from what they are doing, because they are encrypting what they are doing and hiding it from end users, while simultaneously moving more and more stuff to their control points" > "This means 1) they have these kangaroo courts and 2) they’re moving more and more control to these kangaroo courts." That's more about access to their public platforms (things like blocking some users, shaddow banning, algorithmic recommendation manipulation, etc.). However, corporations aren't yet governments, although there are some indications that 'company towns' are becoming a thing, as they were in the early 20th century, where a company would own every house in a city and could evict anyone they didn't like, essentially becoming a de facto authoritarian government. In that case, banning someone from their private:w network would mean they had no access to any network.