This is a really important example story to illustrate the greasy details of protecting free speech!
“Net Neutrality” essentially says an internet provider shouldn’t be able to “throttle” any internet site (like Facebook) in preference over another. Note this doesn’t touch what such sites can throttle - and that’s exactly what’s been done versus trump-land recently. Any such latter regulation touching on sites (“platforms”) would directly confront the first amendment, essentially forcing a private company to support a political view they didn’t want to, would suggest reviving The Fairness Doctrine which used to be a FCC function, but which was mitigated to functional non-existence circa a 1984 Supreme court ruling.
That is, one way out of this particular hell (providers vs sites) would be to revive the Fairness Doctrine - accepting as certain a well-funded reaction of full throated screaming and Supreme Court actions. Asserting that like the former view of the “air waves” (the EM spectrum essentially) as public, the internet should be declared to be born and exist in the public domain. (…and for what it’s worth, (exactly nothing!), i think that’s what ought to be legally declared)
