There is a reason to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn't need protecting.
However, that's not the issue that concerns me. My issue is the conflation of TOS, applied as is expedient, on a resource that is treated in the same way as a utility.
4 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 19.8 ms ] threadI am no Trump supporter, but this is the modern version of a book burning.
The two points of contention in my mind:
1) At what point does a platform or technology become a "utility", with the appropriate regulations and guarantees afforded that legal status?
2) When will companies learn, if you want to control your own fate, you can't build your house on someone else's property.
However, that's not the issue that concerns me. My issue is the conflation of TOS, applied as is expedient, on a resource that is treated in the same way as a utility.