So, instead of preserving the neutrality of the essential facility, which allows anyone to prosper and reduces unfairness (as demonstrated by laws and past ruli

So, instead of preserving the neutrality of the essential facility, which allows anyone to prosper and reduces unfairness (as demonstrated by laws and past rulings), we should allow somebody to harm smaller competitors who may or may not have enough capital to develop themselves and, at the same time, keep up a lawsuit against a bigger and more loaded incumbent. It doesn't seem good for the free market (which is captured by a monopolist), not good for the competition, not good for the consumer, not good for the public good, not good for technological advancement and not good for business itself since new discoveries create new economies. In essence, ignoring network neutrality is a net loss for everyone except the incumbents. Somehow they also managed to make you believe that it's for your own good, and without any theoretical or practical basis. Whether the US adopts a blacklist is a matter of policy regarding criminal activities rather than its economic policy. What I believe is right or wrong in this case doesn't change the fact that, violating network neutrality for economic reasons is a huge fallacy. Personally I believe these blacklists are useless. I'm also not completely sure why you think that carrying 'illegal information' makes the network not neutral... Does it stop carrying legal information afterwards?