The specific worry about Net Neutrality was that ISPs would use their monopoly power to censor specific sources and/or self-preference their own businesses. It's something that should have been expanded to large online platforms rather than being disposed of entirely.
As you said, it was a worry, but ending Net Neutrality about enforcing government censorship was never even an argument being made at all by any sides of the issue.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh[0] argued that Net Neutrality specifically violated the 1st Amendment because Comcast should decide what speech they do and don't retransmit.
False. Get your facts straight before misstating established facts in public. The baker in fact refused to make any cake whatsoever for a same-sex wedding. If you are fuzzy on this, watch the interview with the baker himself in this article:
So, in simpler words, they are indeed a pseudo-monopolistic (pseudo means apparent, something very close to but not quite there) social media giant that can indeed censor millions (10% of USA's population is 30 millions) arbitarily and at will ? Ok :)
And whether a bakery serves your gay wedding or not is perhaps the most petty and inconsequential thing to be upset about. There are thousands upon thousands of bakeries in a large city. You can learn how to bake a cake in a weekend and home-bake your wedding cake yourself, or any one of your wedding guests can do this as a wedding gift. You can go to a no-gays-allowed bakery but simply not tell them you're gay, and take a finished cake from them then write your own name and that of the guy you will marry on it yourself. You can not get cake at all and instead get any of the thousand other types of wedding sweets and food.
It's almost like the whole thing is a hilarious non-issue that some people just invented to cry and act like victims about.
There are not thousands of bakeries in any city. Many towns might have none, or one. In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly on baked goods to people living there.
The baker is a person with rights as well, you can't force him to make a special order cake for something he disagrees with. You can force him to sell standard cakes, and they offered to sell standard cakes in the case, but the customers wanted to force him to make a designed cake, that would be against the bakers individual rights.
Large corporations lacks those individual rights for obvious reasons, so large corporations should be forced to provide services to everyone even though individuals shouldn't always be.
On users. Any network is worth a function of the number of nodes in it (typically a quadratic). Social Media are networks that link humans, and there is a finite number of humans (or, more accurately, internet-connected humans with time to spare) that grows very slowly and inevitably will stagnate. That means a social network is in direct zero-sum competition with all the other networks, and a giant like twitter hurts everybody else by concentrating a signficant proportion of users into a single (aweful) place, destroying competition by the lock-in effects of network dynamics.
>There are not thousands of bakeries in any city
There are in my city, actually. Dialing the number down to the hundreds or the high tens doesn't signficantly change the validity and implications of the argument either.
> In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly on baked goods to people living there.
If you can actually prove that in a court, and if you furthermore prove that the complaining party will incur significant costs to themselves if they try to seek another bakery elsewhere (by a resonable legal definition of 'significant'), then you have my full blessing to force people to bake your cake.
Until then, comparing an easily-replacable food product with tons of suppliers and publicly-available recipes to a proprietary service supplied by a corporation with thousands of servers, thousands of employees and tens of millions of users is ideologically motivated bullshit.
It has to be an impressive kind of hypocrisy to panic about individuals refusing to associate with individuals out of their own free will and freak out hysterically about "restrictions on freedom"... then turn around and cheer on massive corporations censoring individuals with no oversight or recourse.
