There should be made a distinction between what is wrong and what is illegal. Surely, nothing has been done that is not legal, as Above.net has full rights to do with its network as it pleases. We must however, consider that what has been done is not 'good' in the light of freedom of information and abuse of power.
It is in poor judgment for an organization whose purpose is to facilitate the filtration of spam to block content which it is not meant to block for the sole purpose of making a statement. They are not following the guidelines of their objective. They filter spam; they do not make commentary to the industry with abusive 'power moves.'
Likewise, Above.net is therefore providing its customers with a crippled version of the service to which they have subscribed. That is not illegal. I mean, if I had a network like Above.net, I could theoretically only allow users to visit persiankitty.com. I would of course need to be only providing a service that is meant to grant access to this one site, and as bad business decision as that would be, I would have full legal rights to do so.
As far-fetched as that is, Above.net is obligated, not necessarily legally, as I assume that they probably retain the right to alter the 'fullness' of their service, but rather as good net etiquette to not do that which they are not meant to do.
People should be able to choose what they want and don't want to see; this should not be left to be an arbitrary judgment of a 'higher power.' I understand that if people are not satisfied with the fullness of their service, they can always look for alternatives, but in this case, as in many others, there really aren't any alternatives for most of the people affected.
So although legally, they are slaves to whatever Above.net wants to do, 'preferably', they should not have to be. People should not only have the right to only view that which they want to view, but also the right to view everything that they want to view (permitting legal exceptions.)
Slashdot Mirror
There should be made a distinction between what is wrong and what is illegal. Surely, nothing has been done that is not legal, as Above.net has full rights to do with its network as it pleases. We must however, consider that what has been done is not 'good' in the light of freedom of information and abuse of power.
It is in poor judgment for an organization whose purpose is to facilitate the filtration of spam to block content which it is not meant to block for the sole purpose of making a statement. They are not following the guidelines of their objective. They filter spam; they do not make commentary to the industry with abusive 'power moves.'
Likewise, Above.net is therefore providing its customers with a crippled version of the service to which they have subscribed. That is not illegal. I mean, if I had a network like Above.net, I could theoretically only allow users to visit persiankitty.com. I would of course need to be only providing a service that is meant to grant access to this one site, and as bad business decision as that would be, I would have full legal rights to do so.
As far-fetched as that is, Above.net is obligated, not necessarily legally, as I assume that they probably retain the right to alter the 'fullness' of their service, but rather as good net etiquette to not do that which they are not meant to do.
People should be able to choose what they want and don't want to see; this should not be left to be an arbitrary judgment of a 'higher power.' I understand that if people are not satisfied with the fullness of their service, they can always look for alternatives, but in this case, as in many others, there really aren't any alternatives for most of the people affected.
So although legally, they are slaves to whatever Above.net wants to do, 'preferably', they should not have to be. People should not only have the right to only view that which they want to view, but also the right to view everything that they want to view (permitting legal exceptions.)