I think this author either misunderstands the issue or is trying to pull a fast one. They start out by reviewing net neutrality and how it affects ISPs: >At th

I think this author either misunderstands the issue or is trying to pull a fast one. They start out by reviewing net neutrality and how it affects ISPs: >At the same time, if the people I talk to are geeky enough, they usually support Net Neutrality. They believe that ISPs, as providers of core Internet infrastructure, should not get to be arbiters of content. ISPs should allow the bits to flow equally -- not suppress or favor particular messages or sources. And then leaps into talking about registrars and hosting: >Two of the intermediaries that rejected the Daily Stormer, Go Daddy and Google, were only acting as its domain registrars. They did not host the site, they just made sure that dailystormer.com was associated with the right IP addresses, so users typing the domain and clicking links to it would get there. ISPs should transmit bits neutrally but there's no reason a registrar or hosting service needs to host those bits if they decide not to. There are plenty of registrars and hosting services, market effects will shape behavior. If GoDaddy doesn't want the bad publicity, they should make the decision that suits their business. There are not that many ISPs and it's not their role to police content for exactly the same reason the phone company isn't liable for connecting a call that results in a bomb threat or wire fraud.