Our Sets Of Truth Should Remain As Free (Or Low-Cost) As Possible.

"Briqs" by Herr D on heromachine.com. (Category challenge.) You should always remember that accuracy is contained in deception, and deception is easier when accuracy cannot be verified. -Hairy

So, what's this 'net neutrality' thing I keep seeing referenced?

[neuralink burst]

Ouch. I suppose this is the time for it. According to the history I've compiled, there has been no time so caught up in what people would rather hear and so divided about what people claim the truth is. Now would be the time when an internet provider could very easily declare their own biases and punish everyone who disagrees by excluding content or charging more for the right to read contrary biases. There's only one thing that might stop it besides an immense amount of customer dissatisfaction.

What is that?

As more and more people need to satisfy the unemployment office and do job searches for being underemployed, which is also at an all-time high, limits on access or fees had better not prevent job searches even slightly or eventually there could be a class action suit or legal action.

Solidarity is rare.

Restricting the truth is against the Constitution. Balanced coverage in minutes doesn't cut it. People will ignore the truth without anyone influencing them. Trying to hide the truth from anyone besides yourself is criminal. Making differing views more expensive is worse than not affording a good lawyer. All these factoids are piled up, but I've no constructive thing to say except one:

Maintaining net neutrality is the right thing to do. Perhaps if enough people write their senators AND their internet providers promising voting behaviors and taking business to someone else, the right call will be made? Hard to say.

You are not predicting a clear outcome?
 
No--my knowledge is of two outcomes. I do know people won't be happy with the result. Hiding from the truth, enabled or not, just makes more problems.