Posted on 10/31/2018 10:23:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
Unfortunately the carriers can do it too. All the regulations in the world are not going help because you have to sign a one sided contract to even get service.
If you don’t sign the contract you will not get service. And in this contract you are agreeing that they can end your service at any time for any reason they like.
Unfortunately The customer service contract is the real problem...
Yes it is.
At some point Big Government interests and their Crony Capitalist allies could monopolize all the choke points.
We are seeing signs of that now.
I agree with facebook/twitter as there are alternatives.
Not sure about google. Hard thing to duplicate and they’ve got the market cornered for web search and web ads. They also have way too much personal data for a private corp. It’s new ground. Imagine the Left getting into power and taking over Alphabet corp. They’d know everything about everyone who’s spent any time online or has had an android phone.
Will you feel the same when/if paypal and whatever credit card processing company FR uses, both shut you down?
How much would donations drop with the only option being to mail in a check?
Where are you physically plugging into the internet?
“And in this contract you are agreeing that they can end your service at any time for any reason they like.”
I’ve been buying circuits from Carriers on behalf of several corporations for over 30 years.
I’ve never seen such language.
“Where are you physically plugging into the internet?”
Tier one providers with peering agreement.
Tier one never looks at content.
Or, just buy the access from a Tier one provider and they’ll take care of it for you.
Might want to read it again. Electric companies are the only companies who do not do this anymore.
Hear, hear!While it is true that the Internet did not exist at the time of the ratification of the First Amendment - and thus that freedom of the Internet is not mentioned - the First Amendment does not establish a ceiling over the rights of the people. Rather, as
makes plain, it is to be understood only as a floor under our rights.
- Amendment 9:
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And freedom to buy and operate a press - or any improved technology for the same purpose as the press, as clearly is contemplated in
emphatically is a right of the people. But if it is everyone’s right to be a journalist if they wanna, being a journalist is no big deal - not like a priesthood, for example - or a title of nobiilty. It’s not like nobody is allowed to disagree with a journalist - or to criticize journalists.
- Article 1 Section 8:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
Thanks. I'll have to track down the specifics.
However, protecting universal access to Tier 1 providers would still require government law makers to pass laws.
I will be seriously harmed, of course, but will feel the same about not wanting the government to regulate free speech. The left basically already has control of the government (ie, the godless globalist democrats plus the big government globalist GOPe RINOs) so if the government regulates free speech, that’ll be the left doing the regulating.
Wrong.
1. These platforms are Federally protected from liability as open platforms, not publishers, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. By engaging in discriminatory editing, they are acting as publishers, and are violating existing regulation.
2. The users are patrons - customers: These sites manifestly require users to generate revenue. They are thus not providing free services. Their application of the Terms of Service in a deceptive and selective manner is consumer fraud. They do not explicitly admit their leftist socio-political bigotries; they lie.
3. These are not private companies; they are publicly-traded corporations that operate in the private sector: an entirely different thing. They have manifestly damaged their brand names and stock values, and by engaging in dubious and scandalous political machinations have committed fiscal malfeasance. They are regulated by the SEC, and are subject to action on behalf of stockholders.
We do not have a free market; we have a massively regulated market. Get rid of all existing constraints on small business that vastly favor the corporations with lobbyists and you might have a case.
The conspiratorial deplatforming is entering the next phase. One day they may get around to your site too: denying you any and all infrastructure necessary in order for you to maintain a functioning website.
(If that happens, and you do not repent of your current position, then do not expect any sympathy from me.)
I actually believe in real freedom - more than you. I do not even like that you ban persons or publishers from a website with the audacious name, Free Republic. Unlike you, however, I understand the implications of your specific argument.
It is little different from the pseudo-libertarian libertines who argue for open borders (Freedom!) without first absolutely requiring the elimination of the entire Federal welfare system.
These sites are already regulated - and there is further the issue of Anti-Trust regulations. If you do not like these regulations being applied to these sites, then campaign to have them all repealed. Otherwise, these sites must be held accountable to them.
Accountability before the law is inherent to liberty.
Ain’t freedom grand?
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.