McBell
Unbound
Idaho internet company blocks Facebook, Twitter over 'censorship' | krem.com
How does this not make them look bad?
How does this not make them look bad?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Protesting Censorship By Censoring....
- Thread starter McBell
- Start date
stvdv
Veteran Member
This link/article is censored in my country
In all of Europe, apparently.This link/article is censored in my country
McBell
Unbound
Seriously?This link/article is censored in my country
Or you just yanking my chain?
McBell
Unbound
This link/article is censored in my country
SPOKANE, Wash. — A North Idaho internet provider, Your T1 WIFI, confirmed it is blocking Facebook and Twitter from its WIFI service for some customers due to censorship claims.
Your T1 WIFI provides internet services to North Idaho and the Spokane area.
The move comes after Twitter and Facebook banned President Trump from their platforms due to incitement of violence and undermining the transition of power to President elect Joe Biden.
The social media sites banned the President due to violations of their terms of service. Because Twitter and Facebook are private companies, their bans on the President do not violate the First Amendment, which protects speech from being limited by the government.
Your T1 WIFI's actions, however, could violate Washington state's Net Neutrality law.
Your T1 WIFI said it decided to block Twitter and Facebook after the company received several calls from customers about both websites.
"It has come to our attention that Twitter and Facebook are engaged in censorship of our customers and information," an email to customers reads.
The service provider said the change would go into effect on Wednesday, Jan. 13.
In an email posted to Twitter by a customer, Krista Yep, the company says it was fielding calls from customers asking that the service not display the sites on the internet, and that they didn't want their children to be able to access them.
"Our company does not believe a website or social networking site has the authority to censor what you see and post and hide information from you, stop you from seeing what your friends and family are posting," the email reads. "This is why with the amount of concerns, we have made this decision to block these two websites from being accessed from our network."
The company did not specify what complaints customers had made.
Yep said she found the company's email to customers alarming.
"I was pretty shocked that they were just coming out and saying that," Yep said. "If it's not illegal, it's highly unethical."
Your T1 WIFI provides internet services to North Idaho and the Spokane area.
The move comes after Twitter and Facebook banned President Trump from their platforms due to incitement of violence and undermining the transition of power to President elect Joe Biden.
The social media sites banned the President due to violations of their terms of service. Because Twitter and Facebook are private companies, their bans on the President do not violate the First Amendment, which protects speech from being limited by the government.
Your T1 WIFI's actions, however, could violate Washington state's Net Neutrality law.
Your T1 WIFI said it decided to block Twitter and Facebook after the company received several calls from customers about both websites.
"It has come to our attention that Twitter and Facebook are engaged in censorship of our customers and information," an email to customers reads.
The service provider said the change would go into effect on Wednesday, Jan. 13.
In an email posted to Twitter by a customer, Krista Yep, the company says it was fielding calls from customers asking that the service not display the sites on the internet, and that they didn't want their children to be able to access them.
"Our company does not believe a website or social networking site has the authority to censor what you see and post and hide information from you, stop you from seeing what your friends and family are posting," the email reads. "This is why with the amount of concerns, we have made this decision to block these two websites from being accessed from our network."
The company did not specify what complaints customers had made.
Yep said she found the company's email to customers alarming.
"I was pretty shocked that they were just coming out and saying that," Yep said. "If it's not illegal, it's highly unethical."
https://krem.com/embeds/video/293-6617bf0b-7a96-4e5c-a37d-b83facfe535e/iframe?jwsource=cl
Thank you so much.
McBell
Unbound
oh crap, I forgot the rest of it...Thank you so much.
Initially, the company said too many customers had requested the sites be blocked, so it would block them for all customers except for those who called the company and requested access. However, the company backtracked on Monday and said those who didn't request the sites be blocked would still have access.
"Just because you don't like what Twitter and Facebook have done, then you decide to block it for everyone else, so in your opposition to censorship, you're going with censorship," Yep said.
Yep said she plans to cancel her service, regardless of the company's backtracking.
"Their original email was pretty alarming and I don't trust them anymore," she said.
Yep forwarded additional emails from the company to KREM. In them, the company states that two-thirds of customers asked for Twitter and Facebook to be blocked.
In the emails, the company also wrote that their contract and acceptable use policy allows them to block websites if they deem the content "break any rules (sic) or illegal or harmful to our customers and more."
In a phone call with KREM, the owner of the company, Brett Fink, again said the websites would only be blocked for customers who asked.
"We've had customers asked to be blocked by it. That is what the email was about, so no we are not blocking anybody, only the ones that have asked for it," Fink said.
While Your T1 WIFI says they acted in response to censorship, the company's actions could also be considered censorship. In addition, they may violate Washington state's Net Neutrality law, which states that internet providers may not manipulate access to content.
The law contains the following language:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service in Washington state, insofar as the person is so engaged, may not:
(a) Block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management;
(b) Impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a nonharmful device, subject to reasonable network management; or
(c) Engage in paid prioritization
A spokesperson for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee's office said the attorney general's Consumer Protection Division was "taking a look at the matter." Brionna Aho, a spokesperson for Attorney General Bob Ferguson, said he takes enforcement of the net neutrality law "very seriously."
Idaho does not have the same net neutrality law. A representative for the Idaho Attorney General said their office lacks the original jurisdiction to be the enforcement authority in this matter.
KREM has also reached out to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for comment.
"Just because you don't like what Twitter and Facebook have done, then you decide to block it for everyone else, so in your opposition to censorship, you're going with censorship," Yep said.
Yep said she plans to cancel her service, regardless of the company's backtracking.
"Their original email was pretty alarming and I don't trust them anymore," she said.
Yep forwarded additional emails from the company to KREM. In them, the company states that two-thirds of customers asked for Twitter and Facebook to be blocked.
In the emails, the company also wrote that their contract and acceptable use policy allows them to block websites if they deem the content "break any rules (sic) or illegal or harmful to our customers and more."
In a phone call with KREM, the owner of the company, Brett Fink, again said the websites would only be blocked for customers who asked.
"We've had customers asked to be blocked by it. That is what the email was about, so no we are not blocking anybody, only the ones that have asked for it," Fink said.
While Your T1 WIFI says they acted in response to censorship, the company's actions could also be considered censorship. In addition, they may violate Washington state's Net Neutrality law, which states that internet providers may not manipulate access to content.
The law contains the following language:
A person engaged in the provision of broadband internet access service in Washington state, insofar as the person is so engaged, may not:
(a) Block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management;
(b) Impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of internet content, application, or service, or use of a nonharmful device, subject to reasonable network management; or
(c) Engage in paid prioritization
A spokesperson for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee's office said the attorney general's Consumer Protection Division was "taking a look at the matter." Brionna Aho, a spokesperson for Attorney General Bob Ferguson, said he takes enforcement of the net neutrality law "very seriously."
Idaho does not have the same net neutrality law. A representative for the Idaho Attorney General said their office lacks the original jurisdiction to be the enforcement authority in this matter.
KREM has also reached out to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for comment.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Read that earlier.
What's the internet version of "be a parent and monitor what your kids watch" and "turn the damn channel"?
"Lazy morality" I think I'll call it for those who need others to enforce their morality for them because they just don't want to put the effort into controlling their own behaviors, and demand others do the same for their children.
What's the internet version of "be a parent and monitor what your kids watch" and "turn the damn channel"?
"Lazy morality" I think I'll call it for those who need others to enforce their morality for them because they just don't want to put the effort into controlling their own behaviors, and demand others do the same for their children.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Of course I am serious
If I joke then I will add "this is a joke"
And that is not a joke, just in case you wonder
Note: I don't like IF others do not take me serious, hence I take them serious too
As far as I know, Facebook, Twitter and other internet platforms have a right to decide what content goes on their platforms just like internet company has a right to decide whether to block those same companies or not. Though it is funny that they are doing to Facebook and Twitter what they claim Facebook and Twitter are doing to their audiences. Interesting how that works out.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I guess that we are all getting so crazy here that your government is protecting you from us . . . Sorry
I can censor people that come into my home. That is not censorship in the Constitutional sense, and is protected by the Constitution as my right to free speech. At the same time, I cannot censor people speaking their minds in the public space.
People are confusing protection from censorship by the government with the free exercise of the rights of individuals and companies to set and act on policies that govern content on their property.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
According to the article it is only blocking Facebook and Twitter from those that request it. In other words "I can't help myself, please block this for me". Pretty pathetic.
That is interesting. Apparently, I do not know all the rules that apply to service providers. So, they may have been breaching some rules by blocking lawful content. Or maybe not, depending on the state you live in?
stvdv
Veteran Member
I can ask my provider to block things, and I think that is a good thing, at least when I am the one deciding what I want to see
The alternative would be that the government decides what will be blocked, I rather decide for myself
(e.g. now google/youtube etc. decides what I can see about vaccines, corona and stuff, and this I don't like)
I guess that we are all getting so crazy here that your government is protecting you from us . . . Sorry
LoL...once I posted something from the EU...and was not available in the US.
It depends...
I think all this social media mishaps are due to the delicate historical moment we are living,...and are just temporary, I guess.
Pretty much. My folks would change the channel. Though, I cannot think of much that was on TV during the 70's and 80's that would have prompted them to have to do that much or at all.
McBell
Unbound
It appears that Net Neutrality is a state by state thing
stvdv
Veteran Member
No, it's not pathetic. There are situations where this is a good
It does seem so. It also appears that I am not up to date on my understanding of how that applies from a First Amendment perspective.