Net neutrality has never been about freedom of speech in the misleading manner the article presents. Net neutrality has always been about removing financial motivations for ISPs and other significant parties to prevent you from accessing content. In other words, preventing them from double-dipping by charging you to access certain websites or apps on top of the monthly fee you pay to access the internet.

It's always been the case that you could simply chose to access a different site if you're not inclined to enjoy its content. Parler doesn't change any of that, because it's been booted off platforms that have competition that can nevertheless be accessed by you, as long as net neutrality is in place. In other words, Parler can, and will likely move to another hosting provider, that you might be able to access in the future because of net neutrality, otherwise your ISP could demand a ransom to reach the shady hosting provider Parler is bound to use in the future.

WSJ/NYTimes/etc. etc. op-eds are excruciatingly bad/dishonest/deceitful most of the time, pretty much all other days than Sunday. This is a part of their brand that is for sale.

Curious article - I dont think these are necessarily comparable components to claim full on hypocrisy by app level tech companies.

Also it seems odd to promote the bundling of distribution and content as a win for consumers...ATT blocking youtube to promote HBO Max sounds like a loss for me and a loss for the internet. And what happens when every carrier has their own HBO Max?