No, you'd get hypocrites and idiots (of which there are plenty in congress). Suggesting that a private company have control and authority over the electronic si

No, you'd get hypocrites and idiots (of which there are plenty in congress). Suggesting that a private company have control and authority over the electronic signals it sends isn't to do with media companies being censored - it's to do with constitutional law. Enforcing what protocols are delivered and how is step 1 of 2 - the second being actively worked on by most of the pro-net-neutrality legislators: controlling or outlawing encryption. I am anti-net-neutrality for the same reasons I'm for de-funding the police: there are smarter ways than direct remote control for solving certain issues. Starlink (for example) does tenfold more for a neutral internet than any FCC ever has. A neutral internet does not require the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act.