It's an industry agreement that they're putting into law. OTOH, if they have an agreement, why put it into law? I'm happy as long as the threat of regulation keeps the companies in line.
As far as Heritage goes, once the telco astroturfs and lobbyists turned what was an issue of freedom into a conservative/liberal issue, then of course the likes of Heritage will jump on board on the side of conservatives. Another sucker.
——————It’s an industry agreement that they’re putting into law.—————
Which is yet another reason why people know that net neutrality is censorship.
Google is out there censoring websites.
——————As far as Heritage goes, once the telco astroturfs and lobbyists turned what was an issue of freedom into a conservative/liberal issue, then of course the likes of Heritage will jump on board on the side of conservatives. ——————
LOL! Did you even read what’s being posted?
Heritage actually reads the bills. And they quoted from them.
You should try it some time. Then perhaps you’d know how targeted your free speech is online.
And the astroturf groups didn’t make it a lib/con issue. The government as well as the soros funded groups did by usurping it.
The net neutrality you seek hasn’t existed for a very long time. The current net neutrality under proposal *IS* the fairness doctrine for the internet.
And as long as it remains defeated, limited government is the winner.
I agree. This is about internet liberty for all versus money and power for a few (as in MSM and ISPs) and has nothing to do with politics. The few turned it into politics using the government regulation wild card. I may reply to the OP in more detail. I’ve worked the business for 30 years.