Also none of what you said addresses the the proposed legislation.
This is not true. Net neutrality is about service providers not getting to choose which services you connect with. If your ISP decided you can use Hulu but have to pay $10/mo extra for Netflix, that's a net neutrality issue. It's not about the volume of bytes. It's about who the bytes are coming from and going to, which is a content issue.
My bro is the head tech guy for a cable company. He opposes "net neutrality". For B2B reasons. For him, it's about interconnect fees and fairness. Something like they build the pipes and someone, let's say TikTok, hogs all the bandwidth without paying their fair share.
I have no idea if my bro's narrative makes any sense. My bro also believes The Flintstones is a documentary (creationist). So I usually just smile and nod along when he starts to rant about something.
Whereas my understanding is closer to what you've stated; net neutrality is a B2C policy issue.
Whatever the case, my bro and myself, with our very different understandings and priorities, have no overlap in our positions.
I’m biased in that I work at a company that uses a lot of bandwidth. My opinions are my own.
Companies like TikTok pay their fair share. They pay their provider to take their bytes. Their provider pays one of the “big pipe” companies and passes the bytes along. Then they pass it along and charge your bro’s company. Then your bro’s company passes it along and chargers the consumer. This is oversimplified, but it’s the general flow.
What your bro wants to do is skip the line. It’s not enough to charge consumers, he wants to charge the companies, or the consumers more depending on the company.
It’s like UPS opening up your package, seeing there are Nikes in there and wanting to charge either you or Nike extra. You’re already paying for delivery.
That is the disconnect. In their mind you are 'sharing' with all the other people that bought the same thing, whereas you believe you were the only one that bought what they said they would sell you, like any other purchase works.
I imagine lobbyists buffaloing your average elected representative. It's a compelling story. Even if it's untrue.
Ultimately, we value free speech because it leads to a more fair and just society. It's not a rule that is followed by blind faith. Personally, I think allowing unlimited corporate spending on political speech amplifies the voices of a select few so that others are not heard. Essentially censorship of the masses. I fail to see how that leads to a fair and just society.
Let’s say I want to personally spent $1 million supporting a candidate I like. But I’m worried their rival will sue me for libel. So I’d like to form a LLC so that I won’t be personally liable in that case. This seems reasonable to allow.
Corporations cannot donate to (federal) political campaigns, period. See https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...
Now, both individuals and corporations can donate to Super PACs an unlimited amount, yes. But corporations have no different limits than individuals. The whole point of so-called Super PACs is they're theoretically "Independent-expenditure-only political committees" and can't coordinate with candidates. Basically the "We have strong views about abortion" Super PAC can collect as much money as they want from anyone they want* and run as many ads as they want telling people which candidates share their view on abortion and which are monsters.
You may view this as vile and bad, and that's fair, but why should a group of people spending their money together (i.e. a corporation or union or whatever) have fewer rights than an individual spending their money alone?
*Foreign nationals maybe not included in this? Not sure.
What's an exorbitant amount? Imagine some people, passionate about their particular political issue, pooling their money together to put up billboards, run radio ads, get a few TV spots, have a spread in the newspaper, buy some instagram ads, whatever. That's speech! Of course it is! Having the government restrict is a terrible precedent. The ability to try and influence other people, to convince them that your position or your candidate is the right one, is also a principle of democracy.
> The issue at hand is whether or not you can spend unlimited amounts of money on that speech via a corporation. Individuals cannot spend unlimited money donating to political campaigns, for instance.
I specifically said individual donations to political campaigns were limited. I think you’re arguing a very pedantic point that I didn’t even make rather than talking about whether or not our society would be better off limiting all forms of political spending.
When you ban or limit groups of people, like corporations or unions or co-ops, from spending on elections, you give more power to those rich individuals, not less.
For example, Disney's CEO is about five million dollars. Disney the corporation has about 13 billion dollars cash-on-hand.