OK, you want them to be legally publishers, and thus: 1) they can do whatever they want, for any reason, and 2) they're liable for it Right? Like any newspap

OK, you want them to be legally publishers, and thus: 1) they can do whatever they want, for any reason, and 2) they're liable for it Right? Like any newspaper? Fine. I'm good with that. Also good with them being "common carriers" but they don't seem to want that, and as I wade through the ton of verbiage you've produced today, you don't seem to either. As for FRAND: it's an aspiration, not a claim that it already applies. But as for the rest of that paragraph, if they accepted FRAND they wouldn't be a publisher; they'd be a regulated provider of a service. > You wondered where I'm getting this from, look at your own post! You're a walking illustration of the adage, "don't engage with kooks; it only encourages them." So I'm not wasting any more time here.