@briankrebs Oooh, this is a neat conversation! Thanks for sharing!!

What are your thoughts?

Personally (and before reading through everything), I think there's a balance to be struck.

In a perfect world, if the ISP doesn't want to be associated with certain groups or ideologies -- whether that's gay rights and global warming, to election conspiracies and -- I think they should be allowed to say what is and isn't allowed on their service.

Capitalism would imply that a new ISP would rise up to service those folks... Though the capital required to create that network may be prohibitive, and the effective monopolies in certain areas would be an enormous issue.

In the end, I feel stuck. Personally and morally, I'd like to ban certain types of content and speech -- as would my political opponents -- because I think I am "right." But, since it would be "wrong" for the other side to do it to me, do either of us have the ethical right to dictate or otherwise police speech?

And if neither of us have that right, then does it mean we *must* submit to a free-for-all, laissez-faire Internet that has things we all agree are heinous, like murder for hire or child porn?

... Though perhaps that's a step too far, since those are already illegal, but I'm thinking of the furry crackdown on Tumblr that decimated the community for the sake of legality.

*Sigh* Complicated topic for a Wednesday. Still, thanks for sharing! Looking forward to reading through the full thread.

<Diving in...>