Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Puppy
It makes a good press release. It makes families feel perhaps safer about using their service.
That's about it.
Other than that, it's not really such a wise idea. They are a carrier. At the point a carrier starts censoring, then they are become not just a carrier but an editor. There was a case back in the early 90's where Compuserve did this that serves as a precedent. By censoring one thing, you are taking responsibility for your content. You've lost the immunity you have as merely a carrier.
|
They aren't censoring content per se, rather they are choosing not to carry and provide access to a service that is packed full of CP. They are not stopping people from getting that service from a third party (if it is available). It would be like saying that they no longer offer email, but you can get email service elsewhere. Censorship would involve inspecting all traffic and blocking certain material regardless of source.
I think that the ISPs are going the right way, and further, they are probably going to save a few dollars too by not buying this service or maintaining equipment to support it. Remember with the newsgroups, the ISPs were often actually hosting all the content (in replication with other ISPs), so in a sense they already were past the point of being innocent hosts anyway.