I like neutral ISPs, but I think Kavanaugh is probably correct, from a strictly constitutional sense ISPs should have a right to modify traffic in any way they like.
If you disagree, at least give me a hint as to your thinking.
These are known as common carriers. Here's a short list:
Every domestic passenger airline Every domestic freight carrying airline Busses Ferries Cabs Lyft Uber FedEx UPS USPS Passenger Railroads Freight Rail Service Many oil pipelines Even roller coasters Landlines Mobile phone service
Applying Title II of the Communications Act to broadband service, which applies common carrier obligations and privileges (e.g. you can't get sued for what you carry) isn't a violation of Verizon's free speech rights and ruling so isn't conservative at all.
The argument of "ISP's choice is very limited in many areas, so it's different" seems rather weak to me. You can just use a cell carrier, or satellite, or even dial-up. If that sounds like "you can just start your own social media platform, your own website, your own payment processor, your own registrar, or just be accessible through an IP address, or tor etc." it should. All those options suck. Yet the people who are most militant about Net Neutrality are usually totally okay with every other private entity doing whatever they want (as long as it ends up aligning with their ideology).
I'm not here to suggest any solution to all this, just to say I don't think there's anything untoward about a judge ruling in line with the first amendment of the Constitution. Ideally this whole mess will lead us towards more competition and decentralization on the Internet, but given the way it has developed in the past 20 years, I'm not very hopeful.
Because it has to effing stop somewhere, that's why.
Sorry, but saying that giving government-granted telco monopolies[1] a right to censor content is "in line with the first amendment" is the most bizzarre thing I've seen today.
[1]Neither spectrum nor the right to lay down cables are a free market.
And it's no more easy to start any of those on your own than it is to start your own ISP. Sure the barrier to entry to make your own website at some random domain is pretty low, but that's more akin to setting up a wireless router to provide internet to your roommates and calling it an ISP than it is to making something with any sort of significant penetration, load handling capability, and financial sustainability.
The argument of "ISP's choice is very limited in many areas, so it's different" seems rather weak to me. You can just use a cell carrier, or satellite, or even dial-up. If that sounds like "you can just start your own social media platform, your own website, your own payment processor, your own registrar, or just be accessible through an IP address, or tor etc." it should. All those options suck.
E.g., your ISP is likely not the only option, just the only decent one.
1. Have the power to flag (which everyone on HN doesn't equally have)
2. Disagree with the opinion expressed in a comment.
The flagging and banning system on HN needs revisiting. HN has become an echo chamber of opinions deemed kosher by those with flagging/moderation privileges.
At the very least, when flagging, HN should ask what TOS clause was violated.
The expression in question is offensive to sincere Christians not for the cussing per se, but for taking the lord's name in vain. It's a big form of disrespect of their religious beliefs. You could think of it as verbally pissing on their icons.
Out of respect for others, I try to keep my internet comments pg-13-ish and edit out the worst of the swearing if I'm writing while tired or distracted and my bad habits are showing more than usual. Yet I am generally disinclined to use expressions like Jesus Fucking Christ because I'm aware of how very, very offensive it is to sincere Christians. (I'm not saying I never do it. But I don't think I do it on HN, which is a shared public space. It doesn't sit well with me.)
We don't use, for example, "the N word." People can get fired over such racial slurs. I don't see any reason why we should casually dismiss the idea of basic respect for a major religion and its tenets.
Is there any real reason why the exclamation needs to target the Christian religion in order to adequately express exasperation?