4 ms·

So it would be good if we protect the option to go access any site or thought on the net. If you want to get your opinion out there, you can literally write it

So it would be good if we protect the option to go access any site or thought on the net. If you want to get your opinion out there, you can literally write it down with no markup and share it on an http server. This won't be the case without net neutrality. It's not even that you're confusing the issues at play here which are private companies TOS and net neutrality, it seems that you're intentionally making them out to be the same thing in order to prove a point or something. If you want the freedom to not be censored. Make it a point to allow ALL communication and ideas to flow over the network. Facebook, Twitter, YouTube have the right to allow or disallow content that they see fit, as do TV networks, News Papers and any privately owned company. If you'd like to change that, there are two ways, one is regulation and legislation which is outside of the scope of NN, and competition, which is only possible if NN exists in a robust form.

AmIFirstToThink 9y ago
>If you'd like to change that, there are two ways, one is regulation and legislation which is outside of the scope of NN, Is NN not a regulation? Is it voluntary? My point is that NN is not as high a priority, given what corporate advocates of NN have done when it was their turn to play fair. I am more concerned about power exercised over speech, than power over making packets go fast or slow. >and competition, which is only possible if NN exists in a robust form. Competition would allow NN to exist, not other way around. Monopoly of ISPs is the root of NN being challenged.