Imagine if Tier 1 ISPs had a censorship free clause that required companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon to provide services free of censorship or have IP blocks blackholed. They would lose hundreds of millions of dollars per day. I bet they would reverse their tone in a hurry.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/idaho-internet-provider-to-block-facebook-twitter-over-their-trump-bans/

Thank you,

Kevin McCormick

From: NANOG <nanog-bounces+kmccormick=mdtc.net@nanog.org> On Behalf Of mark seery
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 8:06 PM
To: K. Scott Helms <kscott.helms@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Subject: Re: Parler

I assume multiple networks/ ISPs that have acceptable use policies that call out criminality and incitement to violence, for example:

https://www.xfinity.com/support/articles/comcast-acceptable-use-policy

Have these AUPs been invoked previously for these reasons, or would that be new territory?

Sent from Mobile Device

On Jan 10, 2021, at 2:52 PM, K. Scott Helms <kscott.helms@gmail.com> wrote:

Right, it's not a list for content hosting.

Scott Helms

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 5:42 PM <sronan@ronan-online.com> wrote:

No, this is a list for Network Operators.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 10, 2021, at 5:32 PM, K. Scott Helms <kscott.helms@gmail.com> wrote:

This is a list for pushing bits. The fact that many/most of us have other businesses doesn't make this an appropriate forum for SIP issues (to use my own work as an example).

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 4:52 PM <sronan@ronan-online.com> wrote:

This is a list for Network Operators, AWS certainly operates networks.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 10, 2021, at 4:27 PM, K. Scott Helms <kscott.helms@gmail.com> wrote:

No,

It really does not. Section 230 only applies to publishers, and not to network providers. If this were a cloud hosting provider list then you'd be correct, but as a network provider's list it does not belong here.

Scott Helms

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 3:21 PM Lady Benjamin PD Cannon <ben@6by7.net> wrote:

As network operations and compute/cloud/hosting operations continue to coalesce, I very much disagree with you. Section 230 is absolutely relevant, this discussion is timely and relevant, and it directly affects me as both a telecom and cloud compute/services provider.

—L.B.

Lady Benjamin PD Cannon, ASCE

6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC

CEO

ben@6by7.net

"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”

FCC License KJ6FJJ

<Speedtest9118.png>

<Ben LIC.png>

On Jan 10, 2021, at 12:13 PM, K. Scott Helms <kscott.helms@gmail.com> wrote:

It's not, and frankly it's disappointing to see people pushing an agenda here.

Scott Helms

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 9:37 AM <sronan@ronan-online.com> wrote:

NANOG is a group of Operators, discussion does not have to be about networking. I have already explained how this represents a significant issue for Network Operators.

On Jan 10, 2021, at 9:09 AM, Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:

It has nothing to do with networking. Their decision was necessarily political. If you can specifically bring up an issue, beyond speculative, on how their new chosen CDN is somehow now causing congestion or routing issues on the public internet, then great. But as of now, that isn't even a thing. It's just best to leave it alone because it will devolve into chaos.

- Mike Bolitho

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 6:54 AM <sronan@ronan-online.com> wrote:

Why? This is extremely relevant to network operators and is not political at all.

On Jan 10, 2021, at 8:51 AM, Mike Bolitho <mikebolitho@gmail.com> wrote:

Can we please not go down this rabbit hole on here? List admins?

- Mike Bolitho

On Sun, Jan 10, 2021, 1:26 AM William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

Anybody looking for a new customer opportunity? It seems Parler is in
search of a new service provider. Vendors need only provide all the
proprietary AWS APIs that Parler depends upon to function.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/09/amazon-parler-suspension/

Regards,
Bill HErrin