Hacker News Reader

Comment by koheripbal | Hacker News Reader

I wonder how people who support deplatforming would react if their ISP cut their internet service?

Which is why ISPs should be common carriers.

People support or don't support things based on context and details. People don't simply "support deplatforming", and it's not hypocritical to support a ban from a social media platform in instance X but not support a ban from an ISP in instance Y. Analogies used in this way are lazy, and serve only to provoke. You should address the topic directly, rather than comparing it to something different.

That is a terrible example. Is not the same not having internet, water, or power, than not having Twitter or Facebook dude.

And besides that, If I have 20 options like I do with social networks and it's as easy to change as to create a new account, I'll simply change providers or I can easily create another account in 3 seconds. This kind of argument comparing apples and oranges is terrible.

"Is not the same not having internet, water, or power, than not having Twitter or Facebook dude."

20 years ago, we could have seen the same argument that internet is not like water or power.

If the government forces people in their homes, say, because of a pandemic, and the only legal way to engage in the public square is Facebook or Twitter, then I'd argue it is a lot like a utility like water or power.

There was nowhere in America where people couldn't go outside, or put up flyers for their website, or knock on neighbors' doors, or create their own neighborhood watch site, etc.

They can, for various violations of the terms of service.

I thought about this several years ago. TLDR: Every scenario has a spectrum; there is always a line to be drawn. When it comes to cutting off access to someone from Internet services, I believe that line is ISPs.

https://wannabewonk.com/gab-and-free-speech-on-the-internet/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com