I don't believe that anyone here, without looking it up, could explain what exactly "net neutrality" means, without falling back on talking points and vague aspirational language, rather than what actually is written in the regulations.
For starters, the FCC did an end run around Congress because they couldn't get Congress to pass it, so they had to take previous regulations intended for telephone service and cram a square peg into a round hole with all kinds of promises not to enforce certain parts, etc.
I'll bet 90% of the people reading this comment don't even know what that means.
I think most folks here (and who care elsewhere) get the gist and impact of net neutrality. There's quite a few discussions that seem to illustrate their knowledge pretty clearly. You just have to read them. I mean can you honestly recite the regulations? Would that disqualify your opposition to it?
The gist of your position seems to be the supporters are dumb and you generally don't like government regulation .... and the rest honestly seem like handed out talking points about things like "couldn't get it through congress" in an article about congressional action.
I appreciate your posts -- and the few others that voice their ideas that are astray of whatever the current YC-manipulated ethos is.
For one, I have little fucking clue what any of those statements mean. However, from the understanding I have gleaned, I've found to be more close to the metal, than what either, heavily-lobbied side, can offer.
Back to lurking. No place is safe from manipulation. Not [0-9(a-z){0,3}]chan, neither HackerNews. Meritocracy of ideas is dying, etc. etc. ad captandum vulgus.
Do you really think that? Do you really think nobody knows what it means? The previous policy... was it words someone might understand... or not?