Just yesterday on another thread someone asked "Wow, who is making the argument that we should 'sacrifice free speech for a better society'?" and today you come along and make that very argument.`

Except if you read the article I linked you discover that the author of that article does NOT agree with that. They appear to feel that no one should be allowed to express ideas which they find unacceptable.

Actually, yes it is. Censorship can indeed apply even if there is no government action involved. What does not come into play if there is no government action involved is the First Amendment

The answer is this person, among others: http://www.thecrimson.com/colu...

The FCC is trying to gather power for itself. My bet is that "net neutrality" will be like the Fairness Doctrine. It will be used to marginalize viewpoints, positions, and organizations which go against the government enforced orthodoxy.
If these rules were really what everyone believes net neutrality to be, why did the FCC Chairman insist on keeping the actual rules secret until they are actually passed?

That government granted monopoly was a federal law ALLOWING local government to interfere in the market and forbid other companies from competing with their ISP of choice. My understanding is that the courts had found against such arrangements until the federal law allowing them was passed.
So your answer to a problem created by the federal government is to give the federal government more power?

I have heard the theory of "natural monopolies". Classic examples are telephone service and cable service. Both of which became monopolies because of government intervention NOT because of market forces. The theory of "natural monopoly" was used to justify the government regulating both telephone service and cable service monopolies into existence.

Even without manipulation the data will be corrupted with incorrect information. If people come to rely on these timelines there will be no way to correct such erroneous information. Or if it can be corrected it will only be after spending a lot of effort to do so (and probably money).

If it was not for government action creating local cable monopolies, Comcast would never have been able to be a monopoly. The problem was created BEFORE deregulation. Deregulation did not create Comcast's monopoly. It merely allowed it to extend it into more regions. Monopolies are not a natural product of an unregulated free market. With rare exceptions, if a market is completely free when a company starts to acquire monopoly power in it some form of competition will arise breaking that monopoly. The only times this does not happen is when the government, at one level or another, steps in to prevent such competition.

If Comcast did not have a monopoly they would not have the ability to shake-down content providers for more money. And since this does nothing to take away that monopoly (which was given to them by the government in the first place) all it does is require Comcast to be more creative(or more secretive) in shaking down content providers for more money.

Most conservatives see monopoly manipulation for what it is, a product of government regulation. Comcast does not have a near monopoly position because of market forces. It has a near monopoly because of government actions which GAVE it that near monopoly.

No, this has nothing to do with getting rid of the government encouraged ISP monopolies.

Sort of like when you see a regulation that says "neutrality" you know that what it really means is "only viewpoints the regulators agree with."

No, it won't be the breakup with your ex-girlfriend from years ago that you will be judged on. You will be judged based on that STD that your timeline says you had ten years ago, as reported by a doctor you never saw (or even heard of). The problem isn't that deeds will never be forgotten (well, OK that will be a problem too). It is that deeds you never committed, but the database says you did, will never be forgotten.

As opposed to the various environmentalist groups who get regulations enacted outside normal channels by suing the EPA and then sign a settlement with the EPA for some regulation that has the force of a court order...but is never actually reviewed by a court.