The pro side of this argument cites the ‘evil’ of Corporatism that must be leashed at every turn. My concern is that these folks do not similarly recognize the ‘evil’ of unrestrained government. I think that they believe that government can’t be evil.
The pro side argues that Comcast et al will charge different rates for users based on their habits and predilections (streaming movies etc) and possibly filtering some sites entirely. We know that it can be done - look at the content filtering that China does.
I maintain that whatever heavy-handedness that any corporation may wield, it pales in comparison to the routine heavy-handedness of government.
As for jurisdiction, I haven’t seen a single thing that authorizes the FCC to say what happens on the interwebby, but when has a little thing like that ever stopped dhimicrats?!
>>I maintain that whatever heavy-handedness that any corporation may wield, it pales in comparison to the routine heavy-handedness of government.<<
I look at it this way: If I refuse to buy a GM car, or use Comcast, or use Charmin toilet paper, what are those bad ol’ companies gonna do to me?
OTOH, if I refuse to cooperate with my government, people come to my home with guns and I get put in a place where I am afraid to drop the soap.
So...which should I fear?
We have a Constitution that is intended to protect us from the “pro” side.
They can posture all they want. They are unamerican weasels who need to be treated as traitors.