Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsDomestic PolicyStarted 11yrs agoActive 1mo ago

Should internet service providers be allowed to speed up access to popular websites (that pay higher rates) at the expense of slowing down access to less popular websites (that pay lower rates)?

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers should treat all data on the internet equally.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

Province/Territory:

49 Replies

 @9ZJS72Hfrom Ontario  answered…1mo1MO

Yes, if the prices for consumers go down and they can only speed websites up and are not allowed to slow down websites

 @9VT96JXConservativefrom Alberta  answered…3mos3MO

If the internet is slow then since what is most popular is what most people are trying to get to, then I think it’s fair to speed up a more used website at the expense of another

 @9TNKQWJLiberalfrom Ontario  answered…3mos3MO

It would be good if the internet was faster for providers who pay more money, but not to slow down the internet for those who don't pay.

 @9F5KMPVfrom Alberta  answered…1yr1Y

It's really unfair if the bigger sites have a faster connection. There's too many monopolies online. The little guy shouldn't be at the disadvantage. A website should not be allowed to pay for optimal speed. Every site should have equal speed.

 @9FHB77Wfrom Ontario  answered…1yr1Y

Capitalism sucks

 @93BR42HPeople’sfrom British Columbia  answered…3yrs3Y

Private companies are free to do as they please

 @93B6FPPfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Internet should be open and not controlled by only two overseers (bell and rogers)

 @92C6BJVfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Regardless, not a governmental concern.

 @9268W8Wfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

No, this would be annoying

 @8X2LCJJfrom British Columbia  answered…3yrs3Y

We should crush these capitolist pigs with an iron fist!

 @8VWXDZSfrom British Columbia  answered…3yrs3Y

No Internet speed should be fast no matter what

 @8VW3BPWfrom Alberta  answered…3yrs3Y

yes but this must be divulged so consumers can choose between this type of provider and a unbiased type provider

 @8VVG3K4from Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

No, the internet should be controlled by the state and should be free and accessible to everyone

 @8VH2TZWConservativefrom Quebec  answered…3yrs3Y

No, this isn't fair market compétition and providers should be sanctioned for this practice

 @8VD4N3BPeople’sfrom Saskatchewan  answered…3yrs3Y

This is not how net neutrality works

 @8TWBDL7from Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

Internet in general should be faster and cheaper.

 @8TS3D6Dfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

I dont really care about this.

 @8RZTDGCGreenfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Depending on content websites should be sped up or slowed down.

 @8RQRK5PConservativefrom Alberta  answered…4yrs4Y

No and this is a debunked theory.

 @8R52NV8from New Brunswick  answered…4yrs4Y

It’s their decision, not the government’s

 @8P5LGN6from Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes and socialize this service and make internet free for all.

 @8P3F3JTfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Create laws against the throttling and or limiting of data.

 @8KLHHQYfrom Ontario  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, we should make internet free of charge and socialize access.

 @8VP958Sfrom Ontario  answered…3yrs3Y

No. Why should the internet provider decide what is most important for each individual paying customer?

 @9C7BMVHfrom Quebec  answered…2yrs2Y

Slow down X-rated sites

 @9BWK6Z5answered…2yrs2Y

I think if they both have the fastest speed to open up the websites it will be better.

 @936NX9Zfrom Alberta  answered…3yrs3Y

Keep it as is.

 @8XZNFFCfrom British Columbia  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, I don't agree with this practice but the government should not regulate businesses.

 @9C8YBHHfrom Alberta  answered…2yrs2Y

Slow down access to dangerous websites, but otherwise treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet

 @95LSVQVfrom Ontario  answered…2yrs2Y

No, leave it as is

 @Finickydesert from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

No, the internet should be free for all

 @8SXSTLG from Oregon  answered…4yrs4Y

I don't really care for this so can't have an opinion on it.

 @89GKS95 from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but only if the infrastructure is opened up for all companies to use.

  @EdmundSnow98answered…3yrs3Y

No, this would allow them to remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and increase prices. ISPs need to treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet.

 @88NZKDZ from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

No, and we shouldn't have private internet service providers. This industry should be syndicated and available for free for everyone.

 @IINXMP from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but we should support the openess and freedom of the internet, as well as support companies like Stacks, who give the user power over their own data.

 @IINXMP from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and the internet should be decentralized.

 @6PJZCMJ from Pennsylvania  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but ISPs that do this should be boycotted.

 @92YHQCV from California  answered…3yrs3Y

No, this would allow them to remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and increase prices, plus we should treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet

 @8RPPVM6 from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

I don't a stance on this issue.

 @8W949N6 from Kansas  answered…3yrs3Y

The internet should be open and free, but private companies have the right to speed up access to websites that pay more for advertising.

 @8Y2PBJR from Minnesota  answered…3yrs3Y

NO, DO PEOPLE DO THIS? that is so freaking stupid. THAT'S WHY M MOBILE DATA SUCKS!!!

 @93S5CYR from Wisconsin  answered…2yrs2Y

No, and nationalize ISPs.

  @8P6PWZP from Louisiana  answered…4yrs4Y

No, the government should not be involved in internet traffic.

   Deletedanswered…4yrs4Y

If the ISP charges fixed rates for fixed levels of service, that would be acceptable. If the ISP actually degrades the service of one user to increase that of another, that is unacceptable.

 @eleemoore from Kentucky  answered…4yrs4Y

The government shouldn’t be involved.

  Deletedanswered…3yrs3Y

indifferent on this issue

 @8LJSX8D from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

Their choice also it's the people's choice to business with them

 @8J7VYJT from Arizona  answered…4yrs4Y

No, quality of service should be determined by the internet plan of the destination address, not the source.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 13hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…7 days7D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1913 replies3 agree