Good, then we need to keep net neutrality so that can't be interfered with. You don't want only sites with rich backing (*cough* Soros *cough*) being able to put out the news. Then we'd be absolutely dependent on those very few well-financed conservative outlets such as Breitbart. You'd find some great independent video exposing a leftist, post up the link, and many of us wouldn't be able to watch it because the source didn't have the cash to pay our ISPs for the privilege of their data going across the ISP's network.
Even worse, the telcos have their leftist ideologues too, and may just decide not to carry (or rather, block) Breitbart and Drudge regardless of payment, and maybe FR too. That's what you get without net neutrality. This is what is referred to as the "cableization" of the Internet, and it will mean the destruction of the free flow of ideas on the Internet. Enforcement of net neutrality prevents it.
——————Good, then we need to keep net neutrality so that can’t be interfered with.-—————
The government wants net neutrality so they can start interfering. All facts point in that direction.
—————You don’t want only sites with rich backing (*cough* Soros *cough*)-——————
This is beyond orwellian. Because net neutrality will do such a good job making sure that Soros websites can’t gain a monopoly, soros has become such a big funder of net neutrality astroturf groups.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
Only a fool would think that Soros is putting this much money into net neutrality to limit his own influence.
That puts the lie to the obvious. Net neutrality is not what you think it is.