Exactly. The thing to do is to convince people you know that this is a bad idea. I think there are lots of pro-small-business Republicans who see this as a good reduction in regulation that will benefit the dynamic tech entrepreneurship sector, and who would be surprised at its unpopularity within the hotbed of exactly those entrepreneurial techies that is HN. Most Republican voters are no friend to regulatory capture, they just haven't been convinced that's what is going on in this administration.
Advice I've heard is to appeal to your audience's principles (moral reframing is the term I've heard it called: https://www.fastcompany.com/3067593/how-to-use-moral-reframi...). In this case which principles that republicans/conservatives/etc. hold dear would provide good arguments for opposing this proposal? I don't think I have a good answer for that yet. Here are some ideas:
- Personal Freedom: This change will allow ISPs to restrict or hobble sites you choose to go to.
- Free market: This is allowing entrenched ISPs to restrict competition in what web sites we visit. Only the big players will be able to afford access artificially restricting the free market.
- Purity: From what I understand this change hinges on the ability to define a broadband ISP as an information service rather than a telecommunication service. I could see an argument here that ISPs are attempting to use a loophole to skirt the law defining the service they provide.
