I think the author confused net censorship with net neutrality, and sourced his exposition from a single site. This article should be rewritten by someone knowledgeable that is able to expose the matter rationally, leaving any personal beliefs on hold (why do we have ad hominen attacks on a rational wiki article is beyond me).
- The EFF is split on enforced government mandated Net Neutrality and yet apparently the only people opposed to it according to Rational Wiki are 'ironic libertarians' and 'corporatists'.... uh huh right. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It seems to me that the libertarian stance on this is very clear: government intervention and regulation is rarely the right answer. This page needs work. — Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs 01:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Umm, Portugal did not abolish net neutrality, it's part of the European Union so it can't do that. These plans on the screenshot are sold in addition to the base plan, which isn't split. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Why libertarians don't get this is beyond the scope of our imagination.
They don't want to get it because it doesn't fit their ideology. Libertarianism is like their God, their way of life and they're happy to pay more money for their favorite websites and internet speed in the same way a Christian is happy to pay for the church. I know it's a bit of a joke, but maybe an explanation is worth adding or something I don't know. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Workplaces, libraries and other 'places with computer networks' can impose blocks on accessing certain categories of material (which can be somewhat idiosyncratic) - and most people accept that there is a logic to this.
To what extent will or could attempting to prevent the full flow of net neutrality have unintended consequences at least as far as those attempting the imposition are concerned.
There are such things as 'processed wood publications' (books, newspapers and journals etc) and the lesser ISPs can develop sufficiently interesting add-ons that people hear about them regardless, and all the other ways in which people use their ingenuity to work their way around the 'problem.'
As with other examples some people (and even some companies or states etc where ISPs can base themselves) will see ways of using their ingenuity to do something different and more ingenious. And we can create a long list of politicians saying they will crack down on X ... and, even if there is no real opposition, after a little while the initiative fizzles out. Anna Livia (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)