This is a pretty good primer but I think it does grossly overestimate the openness of the Internet WITH net neutrality. Money still dominates what gets seen, it would* just get a lot worse.
Plus Facebook and Google are so dominant, both in and of itself and as a business model, and net neutrality's been dead there (especially Facebook) for years already.
Could you elaborate on Facebook and net neutrality, OZ? I don't use Facebook, and while I am aware of some of their problems (in particular, their poor track record in regards to privacy, their intrusive attempts to "integrate" their platform into unrelated products and services - one of my biggest complaints about Steam, as well! - and their eagerness to turn users into unpaid ad-bots. No, Facebook, I do not wish to "publish a story" about that keyboard I just bought, at least not unless you're willing to pay me for my trouble!), I don't really know anything about their policies on data discrimination or selective service throttling.
I was mostly referring to their "pay for exposure" setup, which is kind of like a tiny microcosm of what loss of net neutrality would do to the whole Internet.
That's a good point, Zircon. It made me think of the google logarithms that dominate youtube, which pushes the more popular users to the top of everything. If you upload videos, you can get the sense that you're the only person on youtube that isn't famous, because all the other nonfamous are invisible. I'm not really complaining; they gotta pay the bills, and being able to upload tons of videos for free is amazing, but it's not net neutrality.