That's a red herring. If that was all net neutrality was about, it wouldn't solve anything. What good would it do for, say, Comcast to treat traffic with Netflix the same as traffic to Google if they had big, fat pipes to Netflix and small, slow pipes to Google? If net neutrality doesn't regulate peering agreements, ISPs will still be able to demand however much money they want from content providers or access to that content will be slow for their customers.

So which is it? Does net neutrality still let ISPs demand however much money they want from content providers or access will be uselessly slow for their customers? Or does net neutrality regulate peering agreements? There is no third option.

It's not really double dipping. Again:

Imagine if two companies wanted to exchange physical packages. And assume that each package exchanged equally benefited both companies, say each company made $10 for each package exchanged. Should each company bear their own costs in exchanging the packages?

Well, if the costs were roughly equal, sure. But what if they were wildly unequal? Say one company had to carry them across an ocean and the other only had to carry them across town. And yet each package carried benefited both companies equally. Then wouldn't it make sense for the company that has to carry the packages across an ocean to also get some money from the company who only has to carry them across town? (Roughly half of the difference in their costs to carry the packages.)

The company that only has to carry the packages across town could say, "The other company already makes $10 for every package exchanged, paying us would be double dipping". But that's clearly nonsense.

Content providers like YouTube and Netflix can locate their servers in datacenters where bandwidth is absurdly cheap. They're like the company that only carries the packages across town.

ISPs like AT&T and Comcast can't ask their customers to move into datacenters. They have to build massive networks that cover cities. They're like the company that has to carry the packages across the ocean.

And it's reasonable to assume that data exchanged between a Netflix server and a Comcast customer benefits both companies equally.

This is the rationale for settlement based peering. And this is the arrangement the free market has worked out over decades. It's been reliable and stable and has fostered the growth of the Internet with relative freedom from regulation, fairly splitting costs between content providers and access providers. Now, one side wants the government to strong arm the other side into getting them a better deal than the fair deal the free market got them.

In sum, I see net neutrality as companies that got a perfectly fair deal from the free market trying to get the government to strong arm them a better than fair deal. And suckers are for falling for it.

Your understanding is correct, but your conclusion is not.

Imagine if two companies wanted to exchange physical packages. And assume that each package exchanged equally benefited both companies. Should each company bear their own costs in exchanging the packages?

Well, if the costs were roughly equal, sure. But what if they were wildly unequal? Say one company had to carry them across an ocean and the other only had to carry them across town. And yet each package carried benefited both companies equally. Then wouldn't it make sense for the company that has to carry the packages across an ocean to also get some money from the company who only has to carry them across town?

Yes, each bear their own costs. But where those costs are wildly unequal, the one with a higher cost is entitled to some compensation from the one with the lower cost.

Netflix can put their servers where the cost of bandwidth is the lowest. They're like the company that only carries the packages across town.

Comcast can't ask their customers to move into datacenters. Comcast is like the company that has to carry the packages across the ocean.

And the Internet has worked this way for decades, with a free market where settlements are negotiated between companies to ensure that the costs are divided fairly.

Because that has worked well for decades as a delicate balance has been sketched out between content providers and internet service providers. Now, one group wants to get the government to disrupt that delicate, fair balance in their favor. And a bunch of suckers support this massive increase in government regulation because they fear something that, even though it is currently legal, has not happened and is not happening. That is, the free market is working perfectly, and they want to replace it with regulation that benefits information providers and harms ISPs.

Except that's not the problem net neutrality fixes because an ISP can still have awesome, fast pipes to NetFlix and shitty, overloaded, slow pipes to Imgur. Sure, the traffic would be treated the same on their network, but so what? If some services are still absurdly slow and some super fast and my ISP gets to decide which based on what other people pay them, what does net neutrality accomplish?

And if you think through what it actually does accomplish, you'll see who it benefits and who it harms. And then it won't be any surprise who supports it and who opposes it. The baffling thing is why so many people have been suckered into making arguments like the one you made that aren't supported by the facts.

Okay, so net neutrality means that Comcast has to treat traffic to YouTube the same way they treat traffic to Netflix. But Comcast can still upgrade their pipes to YouTube to be superfast and not upgrade their pipes to Netflix so access to Netflix is still slow? What good will that do?

If net neutrality doesn't regulate peering, it won't accomplish anything. ISPs can still charge content providers whatever they want to upgrade their peering connections. And there will still be fast lanes and slow lanes, just at the edges of the ISP's networks.

And if net neutrality does regulate peering, then what will the rules be?!

Net neutrality does redistribute the cost of providing bandwidth. But it does it from content providers (who would pay less) to ISPs (who would pay more). That's why content providers are in favor of it and ISPs are against it.

That has never been the way the Internet has worked, and it has worked fine for decades. You can push for a rule like that, but make no mistake that this would be a massive change in the way Internet connectivity is paid for, and it would be forced on the market by government regulation. The companies arguing for net neutrality understand that, and that's why they support it so heavily.

He didn't violate the guidelines. The guidelines don't specify how you have to indicate that it's an ad, you just have to indicate somehow. And he did. The link in the tweet goes to an ad that mentions him by name. The tweet is clearly part of that same campaign.

Say FedEx was knowingly carrying packages that carried illegal child pornography. And say they knew which customers were shipping them and could easily stop just those packages. They could raise this kind of argument: "We aren't materially contributing to the distribution of the child pornography because if we didn't ship them, they would just drive them themselves. So there's no point in us refusing to knowingly transport illegal child pornography. Don't even ask us."

If you've got twenty hours of painful repetitive play into a game, you might spent a few hours trying to get back to your ship so you can continue from there rather than starting over. This is especially true if you are close to a promised reward.

Morpheus is fighting Neo.

"All your bass are belong to us."

Well, to be unreasonably charitable to Venmo, that's what they were investigating.

How come every time I try to type "Venmo" it comes out "Venom" and I have to correct it?