Just felt like adding that. So, internet and free speech. Directly tied together but not the same thing. Same reason books can be banned and you can't sue Badspot for banning you from this forum.
of course they aren't the exact same thing
but you the internet is a communication method, therefore it's subject to free speech
and yes, badspot banning people from the forum
is hampering free speech (in the broad sense, not the constitutional sense), but it's not a problem because there are so many other places on the internet to communicate; and worst case scenario, that person could simply host their own website
on the other hand, giving ISPs the power to filter, limit, or block certain organizations/sites is a much bigger issue, because it gives a few organizations much more control over a much wider range of things
Ripped from reddit:
What if I told you there was nothing in the existing net neutrality rules that stopped providers from throttling speeds, blocking content, or creating fast lanes?
https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/heres-why-the-obama-fcc-internet-regulations-dont-protect-net-neutrality/
The 2016 court decision upholding the rules was a Pyrrhic victory for the net neutrality movement. In short, the decision revealed that the 2015 Open Internet Order provides no meaningful net neutrality protections–it allows ISPs to block and throttle content. As the judges who upheld the Order said, “The Order…specifies that an ISP remains ‘free to offer ‘edited’ services’ without becoming subject to the rule’s requirements.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/05/15/can-isps-simply-opt-out-of-net-neutrality/
But the DC Circuit suggests that a walled garden is fine as long as the provider “mak[es it] sufficiently clear to potential customers that if provides a filtered services involving the ISP’s exercise of ‘editorial intervention.’”
Court document here,
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/06F8BFD079A89E13852581130053C3F8/$file/15-1063-1673357.pdf
TL;DR: Nothing in previous rules prevented ISPs from throttling or blocking content. Just like before 2015.
this is a problem with the current net neutrality rules, but not a reason to abandon net neutrality
it's also completely unrelated to your "the internet is not free speech" nonsense
I am 100% for a more open internet and I think the best way to do that is remove the fees and regulations preventing new ISP companies from laying lines and break up the current monopolies. Much the same reason there isn't huge variance in gas and electric companies, politics was snuffing out fledgling local competition.
yeah, pretty much nobody on the left is against this
funnily enough, net neutrality doesn't prevent new ISPs from establishing themselves, it just prevents them from filtering and blocking content arbitrarily
