Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't think we materially disagree about the civic importance of free expression.

> I personally don't think the government should step in and force companies to carry speech they disagree with. I think they should make certain that no company has the power to oppress people leaving them without reasonably equivalent options.

This maxim has not been violated in this case! HE is one of many ISPs; no evidence has been presented that it colludes with other ISPs[1] to stifle public expression.

And note: the logic of "reasonably equivalent options" doesn't entitle anybody to Internet access, for the same reason that the freedom of movement doesn't entitle me to a driver's license (or a horse). The government may not prohibit my expression; it is also under no particular obligation to supply me any particular venue for expression.

[1]: HE is somewhat famous for having long-standing conflicts with other, larger, ISPs with regards to peering: https://www.flickr.com/photos/mpetach/4031195041



> HE is one of many ISPs

It's one of a very small number of ISPs that form the backbone of the internet (Tier 1-ish) and that puts it in a rare position to censor. The website they are censoring has no direct relationship with HE, yet they are still being silenced by them. That's the problem.


Indeed there is a long history of companies providing services (at inflated rates, of course) to people engaging in activity most are not comfortable with. Think payment processors for porn sites.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: