Hacker News Reader

I can't speak to Idaho, but it appears this ISP also serves some areas in eastern Washington (which happens to be my state). As the article says, WA state net neutrality laws explicitly prohibit ISPs from selectively blocking websites so it is pretty slam-dunk illegal.

I.e., is an ISP implicitly contracted to route packets between its customers and the entire publicly visible Internet?

Plenty of ISPs block certain traffic. Anything from DDOS to torrents.

Good point. Still, I'm curious if that's been tested in court.

My impression is that some commercial practices can be widespread, and still fail under eventual court challenge. I'm thinking of the U.S. case regarding the advertised-vs-visible diagonal sizes of CRT monitors back in the day.

Beyond existing censorship (i.e. ISPs already block stuff, sadly), there might be an implied contract along those lines e.g. statistically the vast majority of Twitter traffic is people arguing about nonsense not censorship.

Do you have the text of said contract? It's not even a worthwhile thought experiment without it. How can one comment on a possible breach of an unknown contract?