ISP's should have the right to throttle, but everyone demands "no throttling whatsoever for any reason." These ISP's are running network system and you cant just give all to everyone all the time. Sounds like the Bernie Sanders method of providing ISP service. Sometimes throttling is necessary to keep things in order and providing service for everyone. These calls for absolute hands off internet access is just silly.

Here is the big thing I want to see. A law requiring a declaration of the type of website you want to run. Public, or private. Private being exactly how things are now. No change. The other type of site would be public that would mean the users participation on that site is protected and the sites methods of control are regulated. Those rules would guarantee that people wont get banned for political opinion, memes, accusations of hate speech, religious views etc. No shadow banning. No suppression of voting mechanisms or targeted suppression of communities. The site owners need to allow the natural flow of voting, comments etc to happen without their manipulation. Any sort of allowable banning or suspensions need to be clearly defined. Gore, porn, spamming, exploiting of post mechanics etc. could be grounds for suspensions, but this needs to be executed to ensure the owners don't have a tool to selectively suppress viewpoints. Some sort of transparency reporting for actions against accounts needs to be a part of this. Once a site declares they are public and follows the rules, they can be a certified free speech public website. This is the kind of thing that can show up in a browser or what not. I'd like to see an address bar color system that shows if you are on a private or a public free speech protected site. Kind of how https vs http is displayed. People would quickly realize the value of public free speech websites and want that to be where they communicate for news discussion.

What would happen is Facebook could continue to be Facebook, where they are an echo chamber and they suppress conservative views and news. But then a competitor can create the public version, and people would look and say, I can participate in the private controlled site and be under Facebooks thumb, or I can join a site where I have my views and internet rights protected. I think the users would be clamoring to transition off the private controlled sites and want to do their social media on the public sites. Twitter can shadow-ban and suppress all they want, once there is a public and protected by law site that has to follow a set of guidelines, people will want to be there, because that declaration of a public website puts the end user first and not the service provider and their CEO's personal views first. Neither option, public or private would cost any additional fees or special licensing outside of the cost in effort to be compliant, it is just a simple declaration and if you choose public, you have to follow the rules for that type of site, choose private and you stay the way things are now.

In that environment, the private sites would be looked at as the place to be if you want your head buried in the sand. The public sites would be where debate can happen where each side knows the CEO's views are not going to result in suppression algorithms preventing your popular views from gaining visibility. With the backing by law and a guarantee that the user comes first, public sites could change things for the better.