Thanks for the comment. :)

I understand what you are saying, but I worry as to how that rationale could be applied to a site like phpBBHacks.com where one could say we have a "market advantage" in our topic area. For example, we have phpBB support sites that have PM spammed our members, that have abused us in one way or another or are run by people that have harmed the community… I’ve blocked those from being mentioned. Should I have to block all phpBB support sites because of those few idiots?

Should MySpace… or should I… have to explain our rationales to you? (Well, I’m happy to talk to you, myself, lol… but, to anyone, let’s say).

I don’t know if the point you made matches up with the point they made and how they made it (Net Neutrality, verbiage that would lead to fans sending angry e-mails, etc. etc.).

I agree with you. As a web site owner, obviously I believe we should have rights. Freedom of speech says you can say anything you want, and I fully support that. But freedom of speech is NOT the same thing as freedom of venue. You are NOT allowed to walk into an airport and yell "BOMB". You can not send pornographic essays to Readers Digest. Nothing says you can say what you want WHERE you want, that’s not what the 1st amendment is about at all. So many people cry "freedom of speech" don’t know the first thing about it and it’s usually someone who’s mad that they can’t get around someone’s rules.

However, I do think that AN guys have a valid point here. We are getting into an area of business that falls under anti-trust laws. While web site owners should be able to censor what they want, they should be fair about it. If you block revver, they should block all video or else they are using their market advantage against a competitor and that’s not cool according to US law. I’m sure this is a minor infraction and may not even cross that line, but MS did it enough to land it court. The problem here is MySpace pretends to be an open system, but it’s not. I don’t agree with sites pretending to be "open and uncensored" who secretly do these kinds of things. It’s not like they were weeding out spam or porn, of which they do a lousy job. I’m not saying they should give revver advertising space if they won’t want to, but making it impossible to embed a competitors videos borders on the kind of tactics MS used when trying to get IE ahead of Netscape.

My problem isn’t that they are blocking it, it’s the dirty and underhanded tactics that seem to be behind the reason for blocking it. Two different issues in my mind.