Try the political quiz

818 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

No, treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

No, this would allow them to remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and increase prices

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

Yes, this would make the internet faster and more reliable for users

  @JonBSimConstitutionfrom Kentucky agreed…2yrs2Y

Yes, this would make the internet faster and more reliable for users

It might disrupt the dark web, used by hundreds or thousands, for the sake of clean and public sites used by thousands upon thousands.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

Yes

 @9FSRVRJIndependent from Texas disagreed…6mos6MO

The overall popularity of a website determining the speed it can be accessed would be very detrimental. Many utilities, mortgages and bills are paid online, but the act could be slowed dramatically if browsing speed is correlated to popularity of a website. Many free websites such as Wikipedia and dictionary.com could potentially become so slow they are impossible to use.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

Yes, only if it’s strictly based on a pay-per-quality model

 @9FSRVRJIndependent from Texas disagreed…6mos6MO

The best counter argument to my opinion is that in a capitalist society the more popular company is the dominant source. If websites A, B, and C all have generally the same information in different ways the popularity is a key indicator of success. if B website is more popular is must be more successful at delivering their message. As a consequence websites A and C would not be favorable to visit so a decrease in availability matters less.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...10yrs10Y

Yes, but only give priority by type (video over images) and not source (big website over little website)

 @9FWJPRFDemocrat from Utah disagreed…6mos6MO

Information is information regardless of format (images, videos, text, etc) and must be treated equally.

 @9FSRVRJIndependent from Texas disagreed…6mos6MO

I also do not support giving priority to certain types of media over others. Everybody learns at a different pace and in different ways, choosing which format types are "allowed" on the internet is a great disservice to internet users and takes away all incentive from being innovative and promotes conformity.

 @4T2WTMMfrom Colorado answered…3yrs3Y

Internet should be a service like water, sewer and electric. Just another utility.

 @53LH4W3from New York answered…3yrs3Y

No. The internet should be treated as a utility like it is in other countries. Our access speed is much slower than other countries and it's embarrassing.

 @9H7ZNLMIndependent from Arizona answered…4mos4MO

No, this would not only allow the popular websites to remove their competition, but they create artificial scarcity and increase prices. Internet traffic should be treated equally and that way it can continue the openness of the internet.

 @99MFTPG from Washington answered…1yr1Y

 @97KSZBQ from Georgia answered…1yr1Y

 @8X84398 from Florida answered…2yrs2Y

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

 @8C7V6WW from California answered…4yrs4Y

 @8GCLT5S from North Carolina answered…3yrs3Y

 @8SQXRQG from Colorado answered…3yrs3Y

 @8CW98CL from Missouri answered…4yrs4Y

 @8R9PNM3 from Texas answered…3yrs3Y

The market place has shown Net Neutrality to non-relevant because technology has resolved the issues with speed. Government involvement has shown continually shows its ignorance and only wishes to obtain governance and power.

 @9KKPGYK from Kansas answered…3wks3W

They should be allowed to because they are private companies, but they should have to be transparent about it.

 @9KK5CLK from Georgia answered…3wks3W

Yes, but only because they should be able to have that right and if they are a private company. Not that this is something I agree with.

 @9KH7ZYHfrom Montana answered…4wks4W

Internet service providers are private companies that can do whatever they want. Personally, I think that the internet should be open and unrestricted and it would be unfair to slow down some websites but it makes a lot of sense to speed up the service to high traffic sites so that everyone can use sites that are used frequently without any hiccups. It makes sense and I don't think it's a big problem. It shouldn't be legally enforced. Let the companies decide what is best for them.

 @9JXVC9R from California answered…1mo1MO

Get rid of patents so that ISPs can become more decentralized, to increase competition and ruin any chance of a cartel being able to outcompete the guy who doesn't slow access to websites. Theoretically, paying higher rates for faster speeds seems good until you realize ISPs can profit anyways without throttling their own services. It's like gimping a car you already made and selling it for cheaper, you didn't reduce costs, you made a mistake.

 @9J7DXT8 from Connecticut answered…2mos2MO

no because that would make it be like a pay to win system so other people would have to pay more just for the site to load faster

 @9HSK5NS from Florida answered…3mos3MO

The term "allowed" infers government regulation. The answer then is that it's a market decision. The government should not be involved.

 @9HLC85JLibertarian  from Colorado answered…4mos4MO

No, not only would this allow them to remove competition and create artificial scarcity. It also goes against all network morality in the sense that everything on the internet should be treated fairly by the providers of the site and the ISP's

 @9HJXJ9L from Oregon answered…4mos4MO

No, This is all a scam that they throttle the internet speed this would only create worse problems and more frustration

 @Porge0Republican from Texas answered…5mos5MO

Yes, but only over website type (such as video over images) popularity (YouTube over 4chan) and reputability (steam over freegames.com)

 @9GC5FDW from Massachusetts answered…5mos5MO

Contrary to the option preceding this one, I believe that doing this would create a monopoly for certain websites and make less popular websites unable to gain enough traction to be widely seen. I simply cannot agree with this.

 @9G3Z8GPJustice party member from Maryland answered…6mos6MO

No, keep the current speeds, but allow an limited amount of options for faster internet speed so that larger corporations are able to run faster, but not by a large margin.

 @heidilsConstitution from Missouri answered…6mos6MO

If it's a private company that receives no funding or mandates from the federal government, which it should be, they should not be required to do or not to do anything

 @9FLHHL3 from Pennsylvania answered…6mos6MO

 @9FJ6LKWDemocrat from Utah answered…6mos6MO

Yes, but only if a minimum standard is met for less popular websites so that they cannot be bullied into paying more just to exist on the internet.

 @9FFG9HR from Wisconsin answered…6mos6MO

Internet service providers should be able to do what's within the power of their contract with the websites.

 @9FDZ2TT from Pennsylvania answered…6mos6MO

 @lane07689  from Texas answered…6mos6MO

The internet, like the economy, should be fixed in a way that wouldn't prompt this as a question.

 @9DXR3SGCommunist from Illinois answered…7mos7MO

No, and create a free, nationalized ISP service to ensure people in even the most remote locations have access to reliable internet and phone services

 @9DQKBWL from North Carolina answered…7mos7MO

 @9DGTWK5 from Georgia answered…7mos7MO

 @9D5Z9HH from West Virginia answered…8mos8MO

Yes, and require transparency so that the market drives customers to corporations without this practice

 @9D37HS3 from New York answered…8mos8MO

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...