[Pilfer]

ISPs should be dumb pipes. They should not be inspecting nor blocking packets and should transmit data regardless of its content.

The alternative, that ISPs should not route unlawful traffic, would require ISPs to search packets and block the ones they find unlawful. That is censorship.

[will_hughes]

You're going to find it a hard road to convince anyone that ISPs shouldn't be able to perform standard network management activities on their network.

It's also extremely unhelpful to bring it up in the context of NN.

[Pilfer]

Using weasel words like "standard network management" doesn't imply those standards conform to net neutrality principles. It's clear that that some of those standards, such blanket blocking port 25, are a direct violation of net neutrality.

I did notice you tried earlier to change the definition of net neutrality by claiming it "doesn't prevent network operators from stopping malicious activity on their network", when really there is no exception for this. Like netflix tried to do, you can't decide what is and what isn't net neutrality just to fit your viewpoint.

I fully understand why you're trying to avoid this topic by describing at as "extremely unhelpful" because I know it's a sore point many people try to avoid discussing. But I have no qualms pointing out flaws in other people's arguments :).

[drdeca]

the negation of "operators must block all unlawful traffic" is "operators are permitted to not block all unlawful traffic", not "operators must not block any traffic on the basis of it being unlawful."

[Pilfer]

I'm aware. Either way it's still censorship.