It doesn't invalidate the concerns, but it makes you question their motivations.

What does it make you suspect their motivations are?

The obvious? More control over a perceived liberal-biased company from a republican controlled state.

That is not at all obvious to me, that's why I asked, it wasn't a trick question, there wasn't an answer that was obvious to me!

OK. I dunno if that makes much sense to me, I don't think it does. (I am not a conservative fwiw). But thanks for clarifying!

I'm not American but I find it worrisome that some of the largest companies in the US (and the world) are so "obviously" partisan and willing to exert their power in a partisan fashion, as people accept this reality uncritically - whether it's in favour of their allegiances or not.

That's what a dangerously broken society looks like. The common folk should never be openly supportive of "robber baron"-style political activism and it's unprecedented AFAIK.

Well, what is "obvious" is under dispute too.

It is not "obvious" to me that for instance Google is particularly partisan. Most big companies donate to both USA parties in large quantities, because they know they need to buy the politicians whoever is in power. I haven't looked it up, but I assume Google is similar in it's lobbying.

The largest companies are almost always mostly looking out for their own profits, and use their not inconsiderable power mostly to that end. And that's not unprecedented. I don't know if it should be less worrisome that we accept that uncritically!

(Btw, to say something is unprecedented and call it "robber baron style" is a bit confusing, since the term "robber baron" as applied to industrialists/capitalists is over 100 years old! Whatever the "robber baron style" is, it originated in the 19th century! so not unprecedented)

what is unprecedented is that a faction of the populace openly support the barons because they think they're doing their bidding

it's a very dangerous game

If this violates your a priori expectation of politicians' behavior, your prior was bad.

Sure it does.

It undercuts their entire argument by making it look much more like a political stunt than any kind of serious action.

Actually that is what is known as a red herring argument. Bringing up something unrelated saying that the original argument is invalidated because the same reasoning wasn’t applied to it is a common informal fallacy. Most legal documents have something related to severability which states that even if one part of the document is found to be unreasonable/illegal/illogical, it does not invalidate the rest of the document.

That's not what a red herring is.

They're calling out the logical inconsistency of the claims being made, and in turn questioning the genuineness of the speaker's motive.

I'm not aware of any ISP in the US that has terminated a customer's service for perfectly legal political statements.

Outside of certain protected class situations, Freedom of Association allows anyone to terminate service irregardless of legality of political statements made on their own privately-owned platform.

And no, political stance is not a protected class.

Hence why Google needs to be made a public utility.

Except search engines are not a necessary service for the public, which is what a public utility is.

Reclassifying a privately owned business to restrict their freedom of association because you think they threaten your political views is autocratic behavior, not democratic.

Certainly it has happened on the hosting side: connectivity, domain names, etc.

ISPs don't abuse their power like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. do.

They absolutely do? ISPs frequently rate the top of most hated companies lists, and many Americans do not have access to more than 1 ISP offering (>=30mbit) high speed internet.

Well then go after them too. And most importantly, go after banks, payment processors and money/infrastructure people in general so they aren't allowed to kick people off just because they don't like someone.

Retail Banks are highly regulated though..?

Comcast once charged me a $5 self-installation fee. As in I set up the equipment in my house and paid for the privilege.

My other option was to not have internet.

Can someone who has the time and money sue Comcast in court for this fee? I believe a judge will say that fee is not reasonable.