3 ms·

Verizon can ban you for posting off-topic info on forums, chat rooms or facebook

15 points by vaksel 17y ago

vaksel 17y ago
From their ToS: (e) post off-topic information on message boards, chat rooms or social networking sites; Had to massage it, to get it to fit in the title
sli 17y ago
What's scary is this might not be a violation of the 1st amendment, since it's their network. But the FCC may (hopefully) say otherwise.
sjs382 17y ago
The slashdot thread for this story is funny. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/01/1743252/Verizon-Changes-FiOS-AUP--1-Offtopic http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/01/1743252/Verizon-Chang...
tokenadult 17y ago
I suppose that means that Verizon would have to hire a crew of forum moderators, and pay them enough to deal with the complaints they will surely receive about moderation decisions. And then figure out how to produce enough revenue to pay for all of that overhead. I'm not sure anyone has figured out how to monetize forum moderation well enough to make it pay well enough for moderators to enjoy it. I write this as someone who has been a forum moderator since 1992 (starting out on the Prodigy proprietary online network) and who still has volunteer moderation responsibilities in various places today. What compensates me for moderating in the places where I do it is a good atmosphere of informative discussion, and the chance to do something about making the atmosphere better. But if have an Internet service provider account, I might very well like knowing that the service provider disapproves of off-topic messages, but I wouldn't like to be the person enforcing that, because anywhere I visit on the Internet will still have visitors from other ISPs, and thus the place I visit may still be full of off-topic messages, but if I work for Verizon I have to deal with all the people complaining about my decisions who visit all the sites I don't care a whit about. My best single way to get the atmosphere I want now is to visit only sites (like HN, for instance) where somehow there is a culture in which contributors outnumber pests. No one has to pay me to help preserve that culture, and no one COULD pay me to attempt to build that culture somewhere where it has already broken down.
shrughes 17y ago
Even more seriously: (k) use the service in any fashion for the transmission or dissemination of images containing child pornography or in a manner that is obscene, sexually explicit, cruel or racist in nature or which espouses, promotes or incites bigotry, hatred or racism
jhancock 17y ago
How does this effect Verizon's position as a neutral carrier? I was under the impression you couldn't take a position like this without giving up safe harbor. If my interpretation was correct that means any forum that moderates can't claim safe harbor for illegal/libelous content. But that can't be right since so many do moderate. Or would this only apply to those that control the pipe and not those that control the site? Sometimes you think you know what's legal and sometimes you have no clue...color me clueless at the moment.
- wmf 17y ago
  Sigh. ISPs and Web sites have never been common carriers. Web sites are covered by the CDA, but it doesn't have common carriage obligations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio...
- trebor 17y ago
  Technically, I don't think that Verizon is a neutral carrier. Not with a clause like this. I've been a Verizon customer for a while now, and they've not removed anything off-topic of mine. Then again, I doubt I've been vociferously complained about.
Zak 17y ago
I'm aware of the potential bad implications of a TOS item like this, but realistically, this is so Verizon can more easily ban forum/comment/Myspace spammers upon receiving complaints from the operators of those sites. We (probably) want them to do that.
- Locke1689 17y ago
  Agreed. I think this is probably a bit of (funny) unfortunately worded legalese and not so much a dastardly plot by Verizon to crack down on your Facebook stalking.
  - aerique 17y ago
    Giving a big organization / government too much control in the assumption that they will be reasonable with it is never a good solution. It will always be abused.
- jhancock 17y ago
  You don't want any carrier to have this option if they are the only reasonable choice of carrier in your area. I'd rather live with the bad behavior if it ensures a carrier doesn't get to play judge and jury.
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  No, you don't. Do you want myspace, facebook, twitter, etc. to have control over your internet connection?
wookiehangover 17y ago
So that pretty much rules out 4chan, huh?
wmf 17y ago
Verizon claims that their AUP has always had that provision, it doesn't mean what you think it means, and it will be changed. Not that anyone believes them. http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200912/msg00041.html http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-peopl...

15 points by vaksel 17y ago

From their ToS: (e) post off-topic information on message boards, chat rooms or social networking sites; Had to massage it, to get it to fit in the title

sli 17y ago

What's scary is this might not be a violation of the 1st amendment, since it's their network. But the FCC may (hopefully) say otherwise.

sjs382 17y ago

The slashdot thread for this story is funny. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/01/1743252/Verizon-Changes-FiOS-AUP--1-Offtopic http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/01/1743252/Verizon-Chang...

tokenadult 17y ago

I suppose that means that Verizon would have to hire a crew of forum moderators, and pay them enough to deal with the complaints they will surely receive about moderation decisions. And then figure out how to produce enough revenue to pay for all of that overhead. I'm not sure anyone has figured out how to monetize forum moderation well enough to make it pay well enough for moderators to enjoy it. I write this as someone who has been a forum moderator since 1992 (starting out on the Prodigy proprietary online network) and who still has volunteer moderation responsibilities in various places today. What compensates me for moderating in the places where I do it is a good atmosphere of informative discussion, and the chance to do something about making the atmosphere better. But if have an Internet service provider account, I might very well like knowing that the service provider disapproves of off-topic messages, but I wouldn't like to be the person enforcing that, because anywhere I visit on the Internet will still have visitors from other ISPs, and thus the place I visit may still be full of off-topic messages, but if I work for Verizon I have to deal with all the people complaining about my decisions who visit all the sites I don't care a whit about. My best single way to get the atmosphere I want now is to visit only sites (like HN, for instance) where somehow there is a culture in which contributors outnumber pests. No one has to pay me to help preserve that culture, and no one COULD pay me to attempt to build that culture somewhere where it has already broken down.

shrughes 17y ago

Even more seriously: (k) use the service in any fashion for the transmission or dissemination of images containing child pornography or in a manner that is obscene, sexually explicit, cruel or racist in nature or which espouses, promotes or incites bigotry, hatred or racism

jhancock 17y ago

How does this effect Verizon's position as a neutral carrier? I was under the impression you couldn't take a position like this without giving up safe harbor. If my interpretation was correct that means any forum that moderates can't claim safe harbor for illegal/libelous content. But that can't be right since so many do moderate. Or would this only apply to those that control the pipe and not those that control the site? Sometimes you think you know what's legal and sometimes you have no clue...color me clueless at the moment.

wmf 17y ago
Sigh. ISPs and Web sites have never been common carriers. Web sites are covered by the CDA, but it doesn't have common carriage obligations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio...
trebor 17y ago
Technically, I don't think that Verizon is a neutral carrier. Not with a clause like this. I've been a Verizon customer for a while now, and they've not removed anything off-topic of mine. Then again, I doubt I've been vociferously complained about.

Zak 17y ago

I'm aware of the potential bad implications of a TOS item like this, but realistically, this is so Verizon can more easily ban forum/comment/Myspace spammers upon receiving complaints from the operators of those sites. We (probably) want them to do that.

Locke1689 17y ago
Agreed. I think this is probably a bit of (funny) unfortunately worded legalese and not so much a dastardly plot by Verizon to crack down on your Facebook stalking.
- aerique 17y ago
  Giving a big organization / government too much control in the assumption that they will be reasonable with it is never a good solution. It will always be abused.
jhancock 17y ago
You don't want any carrier to have this option if they are the only reasonable choice of carrier in your area. I'd rather live with the bad behavior if it ensures a carrier doesn't get to play judge and jury.
InclinedPlane 17y ago
No, you don't. Do you want myspace, facebook, twitter, etc. to have control over your internet connection?

wookiehangover 17y ago

So that pretty much rules out 4chan, huh?

wmf 17y ago

Verizon claims that their AUP has always had that provision, it doesn't mean what you think it means, and it will be changed. Not that anyone believes them. http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200912/msg00041.html http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-peopl...