Today is the last chance to comment on the proposal to kill net neutrality

Without net neutrality, you might not have an audience in the first place. I'm telling you, it's as big of an issue as Google/Facebook's algorithms and their account/video takedowns. It would become even more impossibly difficult to compete with their services. The problem is their monopolization, and a lack of net neutrality would kill their competition.

This is a bit of a tangent, but it sounds like you're wanting a social media platform that has:

1) Popularity (essential for any social platform)

2) Unbiased search functionality (Probably needs to be open source, and will frustrate users with how it underperforms at finding relevant results in comparison to search engines that are closed source and rely on user tracking)

3) Incapability to take down user files and accounts (Tons of legal issues here. Probably needs to be decentralized somehow, or hosted somewhere with lax information laws, otherwise the platform itself would be taken down by the server's location's government)

Edit: And as for your analogy, no. It's like renting a paper notebook, which the seller then takes back because you violated their terms of use by drawing lolicon in it.

I am against NN but even from my point of view the innovation argument is 50% duplicitous.

I don't expect big monopoly ISPs to implement these changes with content providers in a way that doesn't disrupt end users' access. But I still don't think we should have universally outlaw this for all ISPs for all time, present and future, including nice little ones answerable to the people of a city or region. The other duplicity is that this is not an ``innovation''. Please Mr. Lobbist. Governments have been taxing economic transactions at both endpoints (buyer and seller) for millenia and the evil tax man has always triaged the taxed at some level where it is no longer economical to collect.

If elected democrats (when NN was introduced) really wanted to help the consumer they would have done something to break up the monopoly ISPs, not this moral signaling rule says Google et. al. are less monopolistic than you so were going to pick their side. If republicans actually favored free markets they would follow up ending NN by doing the same.

> Sometimes the government has to intervene in a market (like anti-trust laws) in order to create a fair market for companies to compete. And that's OK and every free-market conservative should recognize that fact and agree that it's a good idea if they just think about it for a while.

No thinking required in this case, opposing government sponsored monopolies is obvious and shrinking those that must exist to the smallest possible size is too. Conservative federalism. Some conservatives have favorable views of private monopolies though (stating this as a fact, not a personal opinion) and presumably they have thought about it.

And Comcast will make their ability to slow down or speed up packets a part of their terms of service. done.

Glad you agree that Comcast has that right, just like Google.

NN doesn't matter if Google can pay God with paying customers, who pay each month for gsuite products, got their account cancelled because Google didn't like what they posted. I would take slow lane over that every day.

Capitalism when I like it, socialism when I don't. That is hypocritical.

>Without net neutrality, you might not have an audience in the first place.

DNS can be, and was, taken away without any due legal process. That was my wake up call. Google cloud is registering domains and has that control over it.

When it comes to dire situations, if my ISP does funny business, I can choose another ISP e.g. a mobile connection.

No different than taking another road to go to the bank. My account and money in there is still safe.

If the bank take away my account without due legal process, does it matter if the roads to get to the bank were traffic/pothole/toll free?

For a YouTube content creator, who spent years building brand and audience, one fine day to wake up and have videos demonetized and/or account suspended is like bank terminating your account without giving you a dime from your account. With bank, you can get government/FDIC engaged, with YouTube, they are the Gods of that universe.

>And as for your analogy, no. It's like renting a paper notebook,

Paying account holders of g-suite apps from google, faced account termination with no cause, no access to videos/files/emails. This is digital violence and much bigger threat that has materialized, and is far greater than NN.

If terms of service are enough to allow Google doing what it does, why can't Comcast do the same with their terms of service?

I didn't know it was that easy to do. Don't tell Comcast, please. They would be delighted to hear that terms of service is all it took to convince you to override NN.

You are renting their cable and ability to send traffic over their infrastructure, aren't you? How is cable infrastructure renting different than DNS/Video-site/email renting?

Internet traffic changes hands between ISPs and backbone carriers before reaching destination.

What if every carrier of traffic that your traffic rides on has different prioritization agreements?

If someone from Malaysia accesses your site, you would have to have agreement in place for the entire route. Or think other way, anyone can start extorting money from site owners at any point in time.

It's bad for you as a end customer.

It's like the toll booth on the road charges you extra if you are going to the bank to do a withdrawal.