Quote Originally Posted by StealthPaladin View Post
No on said you did.
You implied SOME sort of link to "free speech" problems. There are none. Free speech applies to nothing here. This isn't even something like twitter where a platform is potentially the only substantial platform available. Don't mention it if it doesn't apply.


Quote Originally Posted by StealthPaladin View Post
As I said this is a legal grey area. It gets into a very involved conversation about Section 230 regulations and civil rights cases. However because SE is on both the client and server side of this equation as the provider they are in a much worse position than, for example, social media platforms when it comes to banning based on user content. That's just how case precedent has gone
But has nothing to do with "Free speech".



Quote Originally Posted by StealthPaladin View Post
You can only sell networked locked phones specifically BECAUSE there are other networks in the market. The legislation around that is actually very supportive of what I'm referencing. At the same time, SE is fully in its right to void a warranty, but denial of service to a paid customer is different. Because they sold a client that works only with one server, and because they disjointed the IP of the client and server AND because they do not allow competition on either side -- that is a monopoly by definition. Gets into all the same issues as the Apple App Store cases
There are other MMO's on the market. There is no reason that access to someones unique service could be considered a "monopoly" as is concerned by regulation laws. People have no "right" to diversity of access to an individual game.