I'm not so much afraid of the fight, as I am cognizant of the fact that once you enact a restriction on something, it's extremely difficult to reverse that rest

I'm not so much afraid of the fight, as I am cognizant of the fact that once you enact a restriction on something, it's extremely difficult to reverse that restriction. I'm also trying to consider future generations - I see no reason to ignore the effects our current actions could have on them. It's easy to think "the government will never use these exceptions to silence speech critical of the government" but quite honestly, I don't have faith in my fellow man in that context, or at least not the typical politician. History has proven that governments can and will abuse any tool they are given. Such abuses currently happen, today, in the modern world. I'm a firm believer in a small government that stays as much out of people's lives as possible, at least directly. I respect your difference of opinion, however. I agree with the idea that "platforms" can control who publishes through their infrastructure. I also feel that everyone should have access to some platform, even if it's not the most popular one. Thus, when it comes to the backbone of the internet, I don't think providers should be able to pick and choose who they host, as long as there is no otherwise illegal content (copyright infringement, child abuse, etc). If any companies should be considered true common carriers, it would be those on the backbone.