Damaged Justice wrote:
This is utter horseshit. AOL, like any private individual or organization, has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
That seems to undermine the analogy that the Internet is like an immense electronic postal service, which suggests a more public than private enterprise.
Perhaps that analogy held when the Internet was supported with money taken at gunpoint from all us tax serfs. No more - you wanna play, you gotta pay. Which is as it should be.
[snip]
Unlike the people who donate their time and resources to the Internet out of goodwill, and who may set arbitrary limits on the services they provide, in my experience, out of bad will, and who cannot be so easily removed, a corporation's business can suffer if it doesn't provide services.
If their business suffers because of a decision, they may reconsider that decision. If they don't, they'll either survive, or they won't, depending on if their customers will stand for it.
My point exactly I fail to see why charging money
for the services one provides suddenly transforms a person into a slave, forced to provide service even if they do not wish to do so.
Non-sequiteur. Do you feel
that providing a service for free is more "noble", somehow, and therefore more "worthy" of protection?
Non-sequiteur.
One of the good things about the commercialization of the Internet is that you can fire those who, instead of providing a service, are busy exercising arbitrary rights to refuse services unfairly or for no reason whatsoever.
Who is going to "fire" a company that provides a service? The gubmint is your only alternative; the gun of the law, your only tool.
You provide the answer that I had in mind:
If you don't like your ISP, get a different one. Spammers do it all the time.
People are whining all over the place about "exercising arbitrary rights", as if it were eeeeevil when companies do it. Get a grip.
Non sequiteur. You're not responding to my point, which is a moral criticism of the tone of statements like
any private individual or organization, has the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason, or even for no reason at all.
which seem to oversimplify matters for corporations like AOL. Of course AOL can repeat statements like these to its customers until it was blue in the face, but the good news is that their customers could vote with their feet. My criticism of your statement is that it an aethetically ugly and hippocritical position to take, if one purports to provide mail services to hundreds of thousands of customers, or purports not to engage in editorial control, or purports to promote free speech. If ISP's want to provide services subject to arbitary limitations fine ... I am stating that I find this practice deplorable, and I have not implied that I favor government regulation to correct such situations, as much as you want to believe that I have.
If a company kicks a spammer off their system, what recourse do you want them to have, other than their right to "vote with their feet" and find a different provider?
None.
It seems you would find it favorable for them to go whining to the gubmint: "Waaah! He kicked us out of his treehouse! You go beat 'em up and make 'em take us back!"
That's an overinterpretation of my words.
If they can seize John Adams' yacht, they can seize your beat-up old car. If they can force XYZ Corp to provide access, they can force anyone to do anything, and there is no grounds for complaint. After all, universal access must be provided! A chicken in every pot, and a router in every garage! Right?
Non sequiteur.
The gubmint isn't doing SQUAT, except forcing AOL to allow the spammers access.
Since I reject the flat assumption that corporate ISP's have the same freedom as private individuals to set limits on the internet services they provide - in this case their freedom to act is limited by business constraints - it's fair to ask why it's morally OK for ISP's to censor junkmail, but if the government wants to step in, that's another matter entirely.
Because only the gummint can "censor". Whatever anyone else does is NOT censorship, unless you want to redefine words to suit your pleasure. It is exercising judgment and taste. Whether you find that judgment acceptable or not is not an excuse to impose your judgment on others at gunpoint.
What dictionary do you use?
I'm not in favor of the government stepping in, but I am in favor of some consequences of the commercialization of the internet. A bad consequence is the increased volume of junkmail. A good consequence is the possibility of removing people who act as arbirary censors of other people's mail or speech, who invoke their rights as private individuals to regulate the services they provide for any reason whatsoever, while they hold their government to a higher standard of conduct, and even seek the protection of their government to act like petty dictators.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
I see you've looked in the mirror recently :)
-- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information why the dancing shouting why the shrieks of pain the lovely music why the smell of burning autumn leaves working on the tiny blueprint of the angle I must be silent must contain my secret smile you my mirror you my iron bars
F Lengyel flengyel@dorsai.org http://www.dorsai.org/~flengyel