Net neutrality is the principle of treating all internet traffic without discrimination or preference. Internet providers should offer equal access to all content and applications without blocking or slowing down specific sites or requiring extra fees for speedier access.

The foundation of net neutrality lies in the notion of an open and free internet that provides all users with equal access to online information and opportunities. Supporters of net neutrality argue that it is essential to protect freedom of speech and innovation and to prevent ISPs from functioning as gatekeepers who determine what individuals can view online.

Both sides in the net neutrality debate have their strengths and weaknesses. Advocates believe that it is crucial to maintain free speech, innovation, and competition in the online world. ISPs should not prohibit or slow down access to specific websites, and they should not charge higher fees for faster access to particular services. This ensures that ISPs do not act as gatekeepers, controlling online access and potentially suppressing free speech and competition. Net neutrality also guarantees that all consumers have equal access to all content and applications, regardless of their financial resources or internet service provider.

However, those opposed to net neutrality claim that net neutrality regulations would constrain ISPs' ability to manage their networks, reduce investment in internet infrastructure, and impede economic growth. They also argue that net neutrality regulations would prevent ISPs from imposing varying rates for their services, restricting their ability to handle their networks and provide different types of services.

Denying an open internet's concept to benefit in a particular way is the only possible why someone would disagree with net neutrality and is sheer greed. If corporations and governments control what the internet feeds you, you are no better than a country like North Korea, which mandates its openness. Censoring and redirecting attention from site to site would create significant misinformation. In the early stages of the book, it referred to the 2016 election. This election came with the most extensive misinformation campaign ever. If the internet was centralized through corporations and governments instead of being decentralized, there would be no way to guarantee that the information you receive is accurate and trustworthy.

Furthermore, opponents contend that net neutrality regulations would result in government excess, limit the free market, stifle innovation and economic growth. They also contend that such rules would be hard to enforce, producing more bureaucracy and increasing costs for ISPs and consumers.

The reason for the severe debate is due to the pressure that companies place on the system. If ISPs pay the FCC, the internet becomes pointless since companies would control what people could see. The most straightforward way to make money is to redirect people to their sites and click on the links that make money. The internet would then become nothing more than a home for advertising and misinformation, ruining the qualities the internet's founder had in mind. The internet was meant to be a place to research, interact with friends, and find cat photographs. If net neutrality did not exist, it would be impossible to tell what was true and what was intended to harm you.

Despite these disagreements, there is no doubt that net neutrality is a complicated and necessary issue that impacts anyone who uses the internet. It is important to continue the discussion and ensure that both sides are heard to find an equitable and efficient solution.

¹ Easley, Robert F.; Guo, Hong; Kraemer, Jan (8 March 2017). "Easley, R., Guo, H., Krämer, J. - From Net Neutrality to Data Neutrality, Information Systems Research 29(2):253–272". SSRN 2666217.

²Electronic Frontier Foundation. (n.d.). Net Neutrality: What It Is and Why It Matters. https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality