King Banaian has responded to my recent post on the apparent "special handling" given left-leaning content by certain email services.
Short version: I think when commercial services transmit political expression in an uneven-handed manner, consumers ought to object. King sees their action as a perfectly legal exercise of contract rights. By truncating it here, I don't mean to dismiss the nuances of his argument — which perhaps I already over-simplified in a follow-up here — so read his reply.
To be clear, I was primarily characterizing experiences and quoting comments from other email users, not my own. I learned about Truthout's troubles getting its mail to subscribers because my ISP does not arbitrarily override my wishes ... as far as I know. And I was not calling for government intervention in the case. Rather, I expressed bemusement at how some free marketeers seem to think that less government means personal freedom flowers.
Yet here were AOL and Yahoo acting more like Big Brother than Big Brother.
Since the users of these free email services signed an agreement that can be interpreted as allowing the providers to do whatever they want — and, since users are not compelled to use those services — King argues:
But as long as exit is possible, in what sense are you censored?
This is dangerously close to the question asked of date rape victims: You agreed to go out with him; you accepted the drinks he offered; the door was not locked and he did not tie you down. In what sense were you violated?
In other words, some will detect coercion where others may ask only, how could you be so stupid?
Did these companies commit a prosecutable offense? No. Should they be called out as abusers? Yes.
I'll have more to say on this, but right now, other duties call.
