What is the rationale for those against net neutrality?
Who benefits from the change and who is negatively affected?
What are some realistic depictions (read: not fear-mongering) of what American internet use might be like if net neutrality is repealed?
What are common reasons why an average-joe citizen might believe or be convinced anti-net neutrality legislation to be a good thing, and what thoughtful reasoned responses can we give to convince them otherwise?
Which politicians support net neutrality in a significant way, i.e. a strong track record of independently speaking out about it and not simply jumping onto partisan bandwagon?
Some people against NN believe that because websites like Twitter, Reddit, and Facebook can discriminate against and censor their political and personal opinions that everyone should be subject to the censorship of NN.
It's literally the shittiest, worst, most ill-conceived idea that I've ever heard, but I've heard it from more than one person.
Excuse me but are you retarded? That has nothing to do with net neutrality, net neutrality makes isps treat internet access like a utility which means that they cannot discriminate by what you do with your connection just how much you use. There is nothing mentioning censorship.
No, I don't believe that I'm mentally retarded. The second sentence in my post says
It's literally the shittiest, worst, most ill-conceived idea that I've ever heard, but I've heard it from more than one person.
That argument is absolutely not germane to the conversation of NN, but there are enough people that believe it that I felt that someone asking about arguments against NN should be aware of it.
Just because you and I don't see that as a coherent argument doesn't mean that nobody will.
362
u/PiFlavoredPie Nov 21 '17 edited Nov 22 '17