First, please take just a few seconds and have a quick gander at this site.
Terribly designed, but geez, what a load of Democratic challengers standing for net neutrality. 95 of them! The site, to its discredit, doesn’t say what net nuetrality is, and it’s a concept that far too few people care or know about.
Explains the New York Times:
The concept of “net neutrality’’ holds that companies providing Internet service should treat all sources of data equally. It has been the center of a debate over whether those companies can give preferential treatment to content providers who pay for faster transmission, or to their own content, in effect creating a two-tier Web, and about whether they can block or impede content representing controversial points of view.
So what would happen to grassroots (or mostly) movements like, say, the Tea Party, under a non-neutral system, as providers are pushing for? Wouldn’t be quite so simple to get a birther fix or plan meetings on your forum if it was blocked or slowed down by Internet Service Providers. (Yet the Tea Party has come out against net neutrality, saying that making sure the net offers the freedom of equal access for all would somehow… wait for it… impede freedom. Must be some wacky tea they’ve got.)
Now mull over this fact, as offered by TPM: Of those 95 Democratic candidates supporting net neutrality, 95 of them lost their races Tuesday.
