The idea that Google, Facebook, Amazon, etc. have made Net Neutrality irrelevant is ridiculous, and is a result of a directed campaign by ISPs to distract attention from them and onto these other companies.
With NN in place, there’s nothing at the network level that prevents a competitor to them from rising up. Without NN, ISPs can make deals to speed/slow/block traffic to different destinations, which would have a real effect on possible newcomers that challenge the incumbents.
> is a result of a directed campaign by ISPs to distract attention from them and onto these other companies.
I've come to this conclusion because NN is effectively dead at the link level, not the ISP level. Try posting a link to the web on any of the big social sites, and you'll be instantly downranked.
Whatever problem that is, it’s not Net Neutrality. NN is about ISPs being able to do things like sell different service levels, like package A includes access to Facebook and Google only, package B includes package A plus Instagram and Netflix, package C includes package B plus TikTok, etc. Or doing things like making their own video service while making Netflix unusably slow.
Not saying your issue also isn’t valid, but it can be addressed by market forces when enough people get sick of that type of behavior (like Twitter/X) and move to something else (like Bluesky). Most people don’t have any real choice between ISPs (through monopolies that have been granted to them for decades by local governments), and therefore there needs to be some additional legal protection against that type of behavior.
Trying to lump them both together under NN is part of the playbook that Big ISP has been using for years to muddy the issue.
With NN in place, there’s nothing at the network level that prevents a competitor to them from rising up. Without NN, ISPs can make deals to speed/slow/block traffic to different destinations, which would have a real effect on possible newcomers that challenge the incumbents.