I see net neutrality bandied around as a wholly good thing, usually by left leaning people and justified with pseudo-libertarian talking points.
After digging a little what strikes me about this law is that it alleges big bad corporations will use their power to silence dissent and become tyrants more or less.
But the proposed solution is to give the government regulatory powers instead, to enforce a top down egalitarian regime on the web. Probably the FCC.
Now after the IRS scandal, media blackout, obamacare site that did not work for a month, and the GamerGate censorship on twitter by wannabe political activists how could this possibly not be running to lions for safety?
I have brought up these issues of mine with NN's usual proponents and it gets me stony stares and accusations of being paranoid. So I decided to ask here since I would characterize this site as honest but not really an echo chamber for any issue aside from maybe feminism (but probably not even that).
Is my analysis correct, or am I missing something?
![[Image: attachment.jpg22791]](https://rooshvforum.network/attachments/attachment.jpg22791)
After digging a little what strikes me about this law is that it alleges big bad corporations will use their power to silence dissent and become tyrants more or less.
But the proposed solution is to give the government regulatory powers instead, to enforce a top down egalitarian regime on the web. Probably the FCC.
Now after the IRS scandal, media blackout, obamacare site that did not work for a month, and the GamerGate censorship on twitter by wannabe political activists how could this possibly not be running to lions for safety?
I have brought up these issues of mine with NN's usual proponents and it gets me stony stares and accusations of being paranoid. So I decided to ask here since I would characterize this site as honest but not really an echo chamber for any issue aside from maybe feminism (but probably not even that).
Is my analysis correct, or am I missing something?