🚀 go-pugleaf

mdaymon@rainbow.rmii.com (Maxwell Daymon) wrote:

<snip>
>The bottom line is that the ISP owns 'the press' and you have no more
>right to force them to distribute your crap than you do to force a
>newspaper to print YOUR stories on the front page (or any page) of the
>paper. Just like you don't get to paint on the front of my house and put
>your for sale signs in my yard, you don't get to tell me what I'll allow
>or disallow on my machines. 

Basically, I agree with you. However, I am reminded of MTV's "Only the
government can censor" response whenever they refuse to show a video.
Of course, MTV is really the only nationwide venue for showing videos
while there are many competing ISPs. I didn't say it was a perfect
corrollary, I just said I was reminded. <g>

>*CENSORSHIP* is when you ARE an ISP and the government shuts you down. As
>long as you are using other people's equipment, they get to say what goes.

There is a service agreement, basically a quasi-contract between user
and operator. If a provider sells itself as a way of participating in
a free exchange of ideas, and if it says that in the service
agreement, then you will have a valid argument if they don't. This is
a very simplistic example, but the basis of it would make a sound
mandate for a consumer-oriented digital organization. This org would
be pushing for valid contracts between service providers and
consumers. While many providers have terms of service agreements,
consumers don't have a process that forces the provider to live up to
their part of the bargain. This is frighteningly clear to anyone who
has been on AOL .


So said,

Dan Horowitz
danh@oo.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.oo.com/~danh/