What change would that be? I don't know of anything they could do to make themselves a utility besides behaving like one and publicly starting that they intend to do so.
I really mean my original question. I think what CF is doing is trying to behave like a utility, and i think it's arguably in their best interest[1]. You seem to think that it's very obviously not in their interest. Care to elaborate on why?
[1] because their business scales very well, so they'd prefer to be considered reliable, so that competition doesn't have that available as a differentiator; any attempt at applying content-dependent rules either uses lots of heuristic automation or is reactive in response to Twitter storms, neither of which is predictable and reliable
I think it’s an easy and attractive talking point for them to posture publicly and internally, and to feel a connection to their personal philosophies. So far Cf has at most discussed the thought and process behind their policies and actions. I don’t see them offering up real public control and accountability of their service policy and enforcement. They’ll want to keep control over their business operations and seek the business dealings convenience of perceived neutrality, which they can do through thought leadership bs etc.
If they actually wanted to offer up control to the pubic in some way, how would they go about that? I guess they could create an appeals process for their decisions that's independent of them; or do you have something else in mind?
