[FreedomNotSafety]

Just go back to some old posts. The doctrine had strong support on FR. Some Freepers were worried that they may not be able to stream unlimited amounts of movies while some others wanted the fed to force social media to carry all content. The was also great confusion as to what was to be “neutral”. Many thought this was simply a reg that applied to the physical infrastructure and IP providers. They missed the point that this was about regulating speech.

They entirely misunderstood the issue. One only needs to understand the Fairness Doctrine to get an idea of Net Neutrality will be applied.

[a fool in paradise]

>>while some others wanted the fed to force social media to carry all content.

Social media has a legal liability exemption specifically because they agreed not to censor views. They are acting like a publisher now (and a monopoly) and are in violation of their own agreed operating conditions.

[Boise3981]

They missed the point that this was about regulating speech.

Net-neutrality is specifically NOT about regulating speech. In fact, it prevents providers from promoting one set of content over another.

Net-neutrality requires internet service providers to treat all data the same *regardless of content*. If net-neutrality is in effect a stream from CNN and OANN travel at the same speed.

If net-neutrality doesn't exist then someone (say Comcast) might prioritize data from MSNBC and throttle back data from OANN - thus MSNBC would stream fine and OANN would be choppy and slow.

Net-neutrality requires providers to treat all data the same regardless of content.