[dahfizz]

> ISPs can decide to arbitrarily block access to social media giants, or any other site, altogether. That is the bigger problem.

How is that the _bigger_ problem? This is entirely theoretical. ISPs have not done anything like that yet because it doesn't make any sense for them to.

Big tech, on the other hand, have shown that they are more than willing and able to destroy any platform they don't like. Big Tech has as much or more power over the internet than ISPs, and are much more likely to abuse it.

[pb7]

One controls access to the internet. The other controls a subset of platforms on the internet.

I know which one has more power.

[dahfizz]

some ISPs could control access to the internet, which is the key point. I have no reason to expect my ISP to start filtering my internet. And if they did, I have a handful of other ISPs that will happily take my money instead. Not to mention a half-dozen 4G/5G providers.

To be clear, I think net neutrality is a good thing. I just think its unreasonable to be more concerned about a theoretical maybe-problem than an actual problem that we are facing.

Theoretically, Russia or China could launch a nuclear attack that permanently destroys the internet as we know it. That is a much larger issue, by your standards, than net neutrality. If someone proposed a new net neutrality bill, do you think it would be reasonable for the response to be "Yeah, but Russia has nuclear bombs. That's the real problem."?