Net neutrality means the provider of the 'net service, i.e. the ISP, is not legally allowed to give preferencial treatment to some customers vs. others. So while right now ISPs can legally create policies that would effectively ban something like Parler or Gab, with net neutrality they must remain neutral in deciding who to sell their bandwith to, so all voices can be heard if they simply pay for their portion of the bandwith.
See later post. Net neutrality effectively put isps under government regulation. The government would simply say “get rid of company x for incitement.”
Yes, it is govt. regulation. I'm all for small government but N.N. is an anti-monopoly necessity, just like how no company should monopolize the roads we drive on, or as you mention in your other post, our access to the water supply.
With the stolen election and corrupt govt. it is a hard case to make, but the concept is that if the govt. doesn't guarantee equal access to the internet for all companies, it is unconstitutional/illegal and if all else fails we can vote out the corrupt people. But if a corporation is fulfilling that dastardly role, it can be even harder to stop them if the government has already legislated that such monopolies are legal.
Basically, we're fucked either way if the govt. is corrupt. If the govt. is not corrupt then it's easiest to control directly with clearly defined regulatory legislature.
Pretty much every example there is of certain web traffic being prioritized over others is something I would prefer never happened.
How?
Net neutrality means the provider of the 'net service, i.e. the ISP, is not legally allowed to give preferencial treatment to some customers vs. others. So while right now ISPs can legally create policies that would effectively ban something like Parler or Gab, with net neutrality they must remain neutral in deciding who to sell their bandwith to, so all voices can be heard if they simply pay for their portion of the bandwith.
See later post. Net neutrality effectively put isps under government regulation. The government would simply say “get rid of company x for incitement.”
Yes, it is govt. regulation. I'm all for small government but N.N. is an anti-monopoly necessity, just like how no company should monopolize the roads we drive on, or as you mention in your other post, our access to the water supply.
With the stolen election and corrupt govt. it is a hard case to make, but the concept is that if the govt. doesn't guarantee equal access to the internet for all companies, it is unconstitutional/illegal and if all else fails we can vote out the corrupt people. But if a corporation is fulfilling that dastardly role, it can be even harder to stop them if the government has already legislated that such monopolies are legal.
Basically, we're fucked either way if the govt. is corrupt. If the govt. is not corrupt then it's easiest to control directly with clearly defined regulatory legislature.
Pretty much every example there is of certain web traffic being prioritized over others is something I would prefer never happened.