Personally, I think this principle is limited in its application. Sure, Walmart may choose not to distribute specific products but at this point an ISP is essentially a utility, much like your water and electricity providers. As there is not much in the realm of choices for ISPs and many users are locked into contracts, this seems like an abuse of the power ISPs are holding.

Thinking about it this way, what if you worked for Facebook or Twitter as WFH and they blocked these sites. What now, do you move? Get a new job? Suppose they also block VPN traffic as that is a known way around their blocking.

> If a company doesn't want to distribute a certain type of content (whether it's for political reasons or because they genuinely think it's better for society that some voices aren't heard), they're under no obligation to do so.

I thought ISPs were classified as common carriers and thus are obligated? Or are we saying we _don't_ want net neutrality now?

That’s not the case for states with Net Neutrality laws, according to the article. For the state of Washington, this move is illegal.

ISP's should be treated like utilities... dump pipes.

Right, and if Facebook and Twitter don’t like it they can pull themselves up by their bootstraps and start their own ISPs!

> It's a private company, they should be free to choose what kind of content they want to provide

Censorship is just a classification of what they are doing. In both cases, it is selectively application of blocking of contents based on one's political believes. Calling them censorship is not an assessment whether they have a legal/illegal/legit/reasonable/unreasonable cause to carry out such acts.

I just find this approach somewhat ironic.

It doesn't matter who's doing it, it's still censorship.