Advice I've heard is to appeal to your audience's principles (moral reframing is the term I've heard it called: https://www.fastcompany.com/3067593/how-to-use-m

Advice I've heard is to appeal to your audience's principles (moral reframing is the term I've heard it called: https://www.fastcompany.com/3067593/how-to-use-moral-reframing-to-persuade-conservatives-to-support-immigration https://www.fastcompany.com/3067593/how-to-use-moral-reframi...). In this case which principles that republicans/conservatives/etc. hold dear would provide good arguments for opposing this proposal? I don't think I have a good answer for that yet. Here are some ideas: - Personal Freedom: This change will allow ISPs to restrict or hobble sites you choose to go to. - Free market: This is allowing entrenched ISPs to restrict competition in what web sites we visit. Only the big players will be able to afford access artificially restricting the free market. - Purity: From what I understand this change hinges on the ability to define a broadband ISP as an information service rather than a telecommunication service. I could see an argument here that ISPs are attempting to use a loophole to skirt the law defining the service they provide. If anyone has ideas here I'd love to hear them.