Net Neutrality --- For Once, Everyone Wins

I thought the issue was about restricting access based on what the owners of sites are willing to pay, rather than the end consumer. They can already restrict the quality of your access based on what you're willing to pay. Or so I assume - it's perfectly legal to offer a tiered service to consumers over here; where cheaper subscriptions are offered which have caps on speeds or on the amount of data that can be downloaded. Data limits seem to be going out of fashion except on mobile phones, but offering different maximum speeds for different costs is still standard market practice for ISPs here. Isn't that the case in the US?

You're talking about a different kind of neutrality than the topic of the thread. When people talk about "net neutrality" they mean whether ISPs have to be neutral with regards to the data they transmit, or whether than can prioritise, restrict or block data from certain sources.What you're talking about is whether search engines and content aggregators should be neutral in the information they present; or are they allowed to pick and choose. This is actually a difficult question, I think, since the whole point of aggregators is to be selective in some sense - they're meant to be filtering for relevance, or what their target market would find interesting. And they're often required to do some filtering to remove illegal content, which can include not only child porn and copyright violations, but also material promoting terrorism, for example.No idea if you have laws on this in the US, but Google is facing a colossal fine in Europe - not for filtering things based on politics, but for doing so to maximise traffic to their own businesses over their competitors.They could, of course, filter things by their political viewpoint, but I don't see much evidence that they do so. More negative than positive results about a politician can simply mean that there is more negative about them on the internet and, more importantly, that the negative sources are better at optimising their pages for search engines. I did a quick Google for Ted Cruz, since he's quoted in the Freedom Watch article I looked at, and in the top ten results I get his wikipedia page; five hits for Ted Cruz's own official pages and social media sites; one pro-Cruz article from a conservative source (the Blaze); a link to all articles about Ted Cruz on ABC; one article from CNN from back in 2016; and lastly tedcruz.com; which seems to consist of only a picture of Hilary Clinton - not sure what's going on there.Edited by caffeine, : forgot to finish a sentence