[User23]

If net neutrality is exclusively a regulatory power grab by Google and the like at the expense of traditional ISPs, then it's true Alex Jones has nothing to do with it. However, if one acknowledges some kind of moral principle that content shouldn't be discriminated against based on the source, then one has to show why that should apply to traditional ISPs and not to the newer Internet companies that run all the same infrastructure the traditional ISPs do.

[jrockway]

It seems unrelated to me. If I write an Op-Ed and send it to the New York Times, it's not a net neutrality issue if they refuse to publish it. Maybe they personally hate me. Maybe my idea seems dumb to them. Myabe I ka'nt spel rite. Even though The NYT has a website, that doesn't mean they are under any obligation to publish something there just because I want them to.

I don't see why Facebook is any different. It's their website, they have no obligation to publish anything.

Whether or not you believe Facebook can exercise editorial control over user-submitted content, it's not a net neutrality issue. Net neutrality is about moving IP packets around without charging different rates based on what's in the headers. That's all.

[User23]

You didn't respond to my central point.

You did however clarify that for you net neutrality is purely about application layer providers strong-arming link layer providers via regulatory capture. Thanks, it makes your position much clearer.