Louis Ingenthron @LouisIngenthron@social.cleverlibre.org

@peterweyand @obi @trinsec Towns are governments. ISPs are not governments.

Also, your definition of "common carrier" bears no resemblance to what that term actually means.

@peterweyand @obi @trinsec Lol, you're arguing against points I never made. Good job.

@obi @trinsec @peterweyand Again, rights have to be balanced in that situation.

The baker can't refuse to sell a couple a wedding cake on the basis of their sex, but the couple also cannot compel the baker to customize the cake with a message he finds abhorrent.

@obi @trinsec @peterweyand Anti-discrimination laws are born of the 14th amendment. Rights must be balanced against each other, and equal protection for things like race is important.

But your claim that "the only way not to discriminate is to host everyone" is nonsense. You can absolutely discriminate legally for many non-protected reasons, the most important of which is opinion. If I don't want Nazis in my business, for example, I have every right to ban them.

@peterweyand
Phone lines are a special case because their infrastructure is typically built with government funds, leading to certain "public utility" requirements in exchange.

But if not for that, then sure they should be able to.

That's why we have anti-trust laws and review sites. Any corp that acted in that manner would just be opening a market opportunity for a less shitty upstart competitor.

@peterweyand Free speech doesn't mean you have freedom to force other people to host or link to your speech.

@trinsec @peterweyand ⬆️ This.

The constitution protects ISPs right to disassociate with speech they find objectionable.

@sean Bullshit.

Freedom of speech means *freedom* of speech and freedom of the press is literally freedom to publish whatever you want. You do not have any right to muzzle other people because you don't like what they're saying, even when what they're saying is delusional.

The reasons for this are self-evident: If there were laws against "disinformation", they can just as easily be weaponized against information by those in charge. Our founders knew this too: The British considered the rebelling colonies to be just as delusional as you consider the insurrectionists.

Speech is inherently subjective. When you cede control of it to the government, it's just a matter of time until those restrictions are used against you.

Instead of trying to silence those you disagree with, speak against them. Allow people to hear both sides of the story and make their own decisions. That's how a truly free society operates.

It seems almost incestuous when ad-based services advertise themselves.

@acjay I'm currently working on something like this. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Thank you for offering such detailed feedback... I'm sure we'll have these tools before long.

@Kizu It's got some neat concepts. I love that it makes it easy to do rapid prototyping.

@jessybessysocialworker @jkosseff They'll go wherever their audience is.

@progressiveartist Sure it is. But keep in mind that whoever is in power decides that nuance.

Think about who was in power during the pandemic. Would you want them to be able to decide what is and isn't misinformation and have the power to restrict it?