Try the political quiz

566 Replies

@5V3XVNNDemocratfrom Colorado  answered…2yrs

Internet should be a service like water, sewer and electric. Just another utility.

@64MJ5X4Democratfrom New York  answered…2yrs

No. The internet should be treated as a utility like it is in other countries. Our access speed is much slower than other countries and it's embarrassing.

@B4R2WKZDemocrat from California answered…4 days

No, but providers should intentionally slow "offensive" websites (i.e. white nationalist or jihadi forums, or shock sites) for the sake of public wellbeing

@B47QR6RDemocrat from Georgia answered…1mo

No, keep Net Neutrality, this would allow them to remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and increase prices.

@B3PHQ57Veteran from Washington D.C. answered…2mos

@B3H5R4FWomen’s Equality from Oregon answered…3mos

@B34WLH2Socialist from Ohio answered…3mos

No, treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet, because this would allow them to remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and increase prices.

@B2PH23VLibertarian from New York answered…4mos

Should providers be allowed to? Sure, but only at their own peril. Government should remove restrictions so that newer competitors can threaten their monopolies. These companies also face threats from decentralized networks like Helium. They should be allowed to implement variable site speed, but it should cost them in the market by allowing competitors to exist.

@B23XMK5Republican from Illinois answered…5mos

Yes, if the provider or end-user is paying for prioritization, but with protections that prevent intentional throttling of non-paying providers or end-users

@9DXB9DMWomen’s Equality from Missouri answered…2yrs

@9SBQPN4Republican from Texas answered…1yr

The market place has shown Net Neutrality to non-relevant because technology has resolved the issues with speed. Government involvement has shown continually shows its ignorance and only wishes to obtain governance and power.

@9HDMV6TVeteran from North Carolina answered…2yrs

@9ZRT9ZLGreen from Tennessee answered…5mos

Not only should that not be the case, but internet should be free for all and not be privately owned or government owned.

@andrewgloverRepublican from Virginia answered…6mos

Yes, as long as the ISP always provides the service level that the customer pays for regardless of the site visited. (If you pay for 300MB you should always get 300MB, if you happen to get 500MB from another site then great.)

@9YDPVMFPeace and Freedom from Virginia answered…8mos

Yes, this type of behavior will make their business unattractive and force current users to abandon their current provider, encouraging the business to stop

@9FCQCG6Veteran from North Carolina answered…2yrs

No, they should not slow any down, but should be allowed to charge more to boost the speeds. It's frustrating to go to a popular site and have to wait because so much traffic is ahead of you.

@9FC3DNWGreenfrom Maine  answered…2yrs

No, and provide high-quallity, free-at-the-point-of-service federally owned broadband.

@9XPQVNRRepublican from Georgia answered…9mos

Through overbearing regulation, the government has created a monopolistic environment in the ISP space. Create an environment for innovation/competition, and then this will be a non-issue. Speed it all up.

@9W5S8YGPeace and Freedom from Missouri answered…10mos

@9TDQWQBSocialist from Kansas answered…1yr

No, and establish a public telecommunications company to build broadband infrastructure and provide affordable wireless broadband and 5G service.

@9SV9KH5Independentfrom Maine  answered…1yr

@9RVRD9BWomen’s Equality from Alabama answered…1yr

@9HWCW34Peace and Freedom from Colorado answered…2yrs

yes they should speed it up for people that pay more but dont slow the people who pay less.

@9HT8PRSPeace and Freedom from Illinois answered…2yrs

No. Because the internet permeates so much of our lives now it is functionally a need and should be considered a public utility.

@9H6YBSHPeace and Freedom from California answered…2yrs

Yes, but only if they are not receiving any government subsidy... and if they do it should be transparent

@9GXBG5SLibertarian from Georgia answered…2yrs

Yes but within reason, there should be minimums in place so everyone can compete.

@9G4NJKBSocialist from New York answered…2yrs

No, this would be unconstitutional and add more favor to the wealthiest websites; there's too much of that already.

@9FTNYM3Green from Missouri answered…2yrs

@9FDV39HVeteran from Kentucky answered…2yrs

No, they should speed up access to all sites, especially in rural areas with terrible internet for the price of good internet.

@natet92Constitution from Michigan answered…2yrs

Yes, but this only works if there is not a monopoly on the service.

@9JS28WHSocialist from Massachusetts answered…2yrs

No, this is a violation of free speech and should not be permitted for platforms so broad as internet service providers.

@9J8VYW9Democrat from Wisconsin answered…2yrs

@9R2NKKDVeteran from New Jersey answered…2yrs

Internet shouldn’t be taxed and there should be high power internet for everyone at the same price

@9QSWWWCPeace and Freedom from Florida answered…2yrs

there should be no private property, and no monetary currency system, this would remove conflict altogether.

@9N9VSL7Independent from South Carolina answered…2yrs

Not beyond an initial pay-per-quality model. If not to ban pornographic sites, they may be slowed down beyond an initial model to improve other sites. Access to sites that are down should be slowed, until they are back up.

@9MHG2BBLibertarian from Massachusetts answered…2yrs

Yes, but the industry should be deregulated to allow more competition.

@Andrew-SkeensLibertarian from Pennsylvania answered…2yrs

Yes, private service providers should not be regulated by the government

@9M2Y5QFGreen from Minnesota answered…2yrs

Depends on if we’re continuing to promote capitalism. If yes then yes. If no then what are we proposing as a reasonable alternative?

@9LZ4SW5Libertarian from Pennsylvania answered…2yrs

Yes, of course a company should be able to offer a product. And another ISP can come along and offer a less restricted product---let the consumer decide.

@9LJL4D7Libertarianfrom Maine  answered…2yrs

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...