> There's nothing stopping these maniacs from starting their own intermediaries to host the content(trash) they want to peddle.
Why couldn't you say the same about net neutrality?
Why couldn't you say the same about net neutrality?
1) Google, Facebook, Twitter, CloudFlare, GoDaddy, and a few other actors ban a certain flavor of hate speech.
2) The pro-hate-speech crowd tries to start their own "Facebook for white nationalism" but can't, because they don't have "premium" peering arrangements with all the eyeball ISPs.
3) There is no step 3, it's game over.
Whatever you permit to be used against your opponents is certain to be used against your friends as well.
Starting your own ISP can require MASSIVE capital investment if you want to have a hope of competing and take years. There's a reason there are only a handful of really competitive ISPs in the US.
Changing DNS hosts is a mild inconvenience. They can find someone who will host their records. Google shouldn't be forced to do it.
But if I don't like the only ISP in my town blocking some stuff I don't the kind of money Google had to waste to start a new ISP for me and others in my town.