https://www.reddit.com/r/netneutrality/comments/6ach2d/top_r...

* 55957 comments with "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. ..."

* 13649 comments with: "I was outraged by the Obama/Wheeler FCC's decision to reclassify the Internet as a regulated \"public utility\" under a Depression-era law written for the old Ma Bell telephone monopoly. ..."

There are a bunch of repeated pro net neutrality comments, but they tend to be variances of "I support strong net neutrality backed by Title II oversight of ISPs."

There are 263512 unique comments, and 14859 comments repeated twice, 4318 comments repeated thrice.

All I have heard in favor of removing net neutrality is "it's a regulation, and regulation is bad."

Of course, this argument falls to pieces very quickly no matter what angle I try to think of it from.

As far as I can tell, there really is no legitimate argument. I like to think that I can consider any perspective on an issue, and understand why someone might disagree with me. In most cases, I can do that, but removing privacy and net neutrality rules are two subjects where I have been completely unable to do so.

I don't like to give up, and jump to the conclusion that my perspective is the only plausible one. I want to make it clear that I haven't given up on listening for the other side of the story, but thus far, I haven't heard a peep of it. I hate to say it, but there likely isn't one.

Also corruption. Monopolists pay them a lot, and play the dumb "don't regulate, the invisible hand of the market will fix all" card which simply doesn't apply in monopolized cases.

We absolutely have a say. Without our vote, these characters are out of a job. No job means no lobbying money.

Do you mind taking a moment to tell the rest of us why?

I really want to know.