So because information content is not the same as food, it’s ok for corporations to be artificially advantaged and consumers to be artificially disadvantaged? A

So because information content is not the same as food, it’s ok for corporations to be artificially advantaged and consumers to be artificially disadvantaged? And consumers aren’t allowed to consider the moral implications of the arrangement? Or what it incentivizes companies to do? Or whether their ability to consume content is limited by regulatory capture? I am not convinced by your reply because it tries to flip it around and blame the consumer (the victim of regulatory capture and ISP monopolies or oligopolies) just because the thing they are being deprived of “is not food.” No part of this is related to whether something is a human right — that’s completely unrelated. The problem is why should I, as a consumer, agree to accept a worse life in any way, even a minor way based on what is convenient for a corporation acting to ensure regulatory capture and ensure monopolistic or oligopolistic conditions within which it can unilaterally control what a consumer is allowed to consume.