There's nothing sensational, leftist, or tabloidish about this story.
Net neutrality is a frequent topic of discussion on Slashdot. Anything that the President-elect does that could affect it is news for nerds and stuff that matters.
I dunno - it sure seems sensational, leftish, and tabloidish to me.
The left is carping on every slight aspect of everything Trump does, and in a negative tone.
Honestly, we don't know *what* will happen in the future, and even if the absolute worst case imaginable for this specific issue... nothing will change.
As far as I can tell, there's no legislation demanding net neutrality in the US. We have an FCC regulation that's been tied up in court for a year and a half, and meanwhile Comcast is free to degrade Netflix and demand an internet levy on Netflix as a customer.
I further note that Trump has a tendency to be concerned with voter needs as opposed to corporate needs, and wants to build up his brand by being the best president in the last 50 years, and the best of all time if possible. He also has shown a willingness to take actions in contradiction to advice(*).
We don't know what he'll do, but it can't be much worse than what was done under Bush, or under Obama. Which was basically "companies can do what they want, the US government can do what it wants, and screw the needs of the people".
Obama expanded internet surveillance, and spent trillions on unneeded military buildup while letting our own infrastructure decay. It's been that way for years, coming up on decades.
Is appointing a net-neutrality opponent really that sensational?
I suppose if you're a Democrat, it is.
We elected Trump for the actions he will take.
So far, he hasn't really done anything except prevent a bunch of jobs from leaving the US.
(*) Hillary chose to take out Qaddafi in contradiction to advice as well. The advice pointed out that it would lead to the formation of ISIS, but it was her decision to make.