DrCR wrote:They, as a large entity in the internet realm, 'support' all sorts of sites -- from Islamic, to LGBT, to O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, to neo-Nazi/socalistim, to Catholic, to the environmentally negligent, to nature worshipers, to whatever. Them being a neutral party re speech is exactly the position they should take. Are you going to take umbrage with, for example, an ISP providing connectivity to, say, the Iman, Scientologist, Quaker/Friend, lime flavour Budweiser drinker (the horror), or whoever down the street?
My point is simply that just because they provide services to a political party, in your example one we both utterly do not support, is to me a tangential discussion. My concern is more objective re their claims than subjective.
This is exactly how I feel about it. I was going to write something similar, but simply didn't have the time. Thanks for that.
The service should be neutral and apolitical. It simply provides a platform and some pipes. What the customer puts on there, short of something blatantly illegal (and even then, go after the customer, not the provider), shouldn't be of concern to the provider. If it's just something distasteful (for example racist) but clearly not illegal, then people are being hypocrites for even bringing it up. Just because it's distasteful to you doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to someone else. And if it's not illegal, then go all activist on it if you like, but don't involve government regulators.