[Boise3981]

Admittedly, I don't understand the net-neutrality issue that well

Net neutrality requires internet providers to treat all internet traffic with the same priority. Without net neutrality providers could setup "fast lanes" where some sites load better and faster than others and charge companies for access to those fast lanes. As a practical result this would allow large established companies to have a competitive edge over new, smaller, startup type companies - potentially stifling innovation.

Internet companies don't like net-neutrality because they'd like to make money off of "fast lanes". Large corporations don't like net-neutrality because they would like the advantage a faster site/connection would give them over newer rivals. New companies like net-neutrality because it's a level playing field and they can compete fairly with established corporations based on better product or idea.

For us as consumers? Getting rid of net-neutrality benefits existing power structures - particularly media companies. MSNBC, CNN, Fox News would be able to afford the "fast lane" and stream fast while OANN or Newsmax would be slower and choppier. Netflix and Hulu would be fast while the next new thing would have trouble getting off the ground. If you're happy with the existing media environment, then getting rid of net-neutrality is probably okay. If you're not happy with the existing media environment then net-neutrality offers a greater chance at innovation and change (particularly from non-mainstream places).

[palmer]

Getting rid of net-neutrality benefits existing power structures...

There is no "net neutrality" now. The "fast lanes" don't mean anything except for streaming HD video. You certainly don't need streaming HD to be informed and get non-mainstream viewpoints. Low quality video is completely adequate for that.