> sometimes exclusively hosted Gov content needs to end.
but then do you somehow draw a line somewhere arbitrarily on internet access as the requirement that the citizens have to privately provide for themselves? You currently have to pay for it, and if you don't, you also don't get access to the exclusively hosted gov content on the net.
Of course, i'm exaggerating, since the ISP "should" not have the ability to censor this content.
I think for important announcements, channels such as radio or emergency broadcasts is the way to go. For discussions and other political content, the gov should not mandate a specific place for it - and leave it up to the people's choices.
but then do you somehow draw a line somewhere arbitrarily on internet access as the requirement that the citizens have to privately provide for themselves? You currently have to pay for it, and if you don't, you also don't get access to the exclusively hosted gov content on the net.
Of course, i'm exaggerating, since the ISP "should" not have the ability to censor this content.
I think for important announcements, channels such as radio or emergency broadcasts is the way to go. For discussions and other political content, the gov should not mandate a specific place for it - and leave it up to the people's choices.