I too applaud Fenix's actions...if you voted to put an enemy of the 2nd A into power, then suck eggs...you don't need guns and ammo from an internet provider which your chose politician wants to put out of business. Basically, go fuck yourself is appropriate in this circumstance.
However, I did read the article which then turned to compare this private company's policy to that of Twitter/FB/YouTube/etc and did so on a false basis.
To me, these so called media outlets are just like the major networks 30-40 years or so ago. That is, at the time there were very limited sources for news, they had sort of a monopoly given the need for broadcast bandwidth licenses, and the Fairness Doctrine (not Equal Time) required that they "broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of
public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters", that they "required that contrasting viewpoints be presented" and "The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of
party polarization in the United States."
My understanding is that Fairness was repealed by the FCC as more and more outlets for info became available and due to, what I consider wrong, the conclusion that it unconstitutionally restricted 1st A rights of the press.
To me, the social blather outlets and YouTube/Google are also almost defacto monopolies, dominate a lot of the information space, and have a huge impact on the political scene in this country so no...I do not think they are anywhere in the same fucking universe as an ammo manf deciding who to sell to and who not.
Cheers
reason.com
