zlacker

Your internet provider is also a private company. Do you think it should be free to censor you and close your contract if you visit websites they don't agree with?

>>dist-e+(OP)
While youre touching on a real issue, your phrasing doesn't really convey you've understood the issue you're touching on, honestly.

What you're actually putting forth is wherever large social media platforms should be treated as utilities. (Which ISPs are).

If the legislative decided to categorize it as a utility, then any censorship the company decided to do could potentially infringe on your free speech, yes.

However, this is not the case as of today. If it's deemed as such, it'd definitely have a global effect. Wherever that'd be positive would be an interesting case study.

And I might add: lots of ISPs host DNS servers which do in fact censor / block certain domains from resolving

>>ffsm8+74
> your phrasing doesn't really convey you've understood the issue you're touching on, honestly.

I've understood it very well, I find it very funny that people which say stuff like Google is a private company and should do what it wants are the same people which say Google should respect net-neutrality (peering agreements, ...) and not do what it wants when it's about core networking and not social media.

>>dist-e+8l1
How is that funny?

A utility is something that is regulated, it comes with a lot of caveats and challenges. It's not just a label you can put on anything, you need to actually define and set boundaries etc to what the utility provider is required to do etc.

This has happened for ISPs, but none of that has happened for Twitter, Facebook etc... thus it's not a utility, thus it's not bound to the free speech amendment.