Well, what they actually seem to be saying is that network neutrality should protect against discrimination based on user, application, content or other details that are irrelevant to network transit. The argument is that performance requirements are something a bit different and there is a need for market to allow for competition on performance without allowing discrimination based on the other aspects of the traffic.

The idea being that if your ISP owns a game company that makes a popular FPS, they shouldn't be able to charge higher rates for packets that need high performance based on the fact that those packets are carrying content for a competing FPS.

It doesn't really seem to be circumventing NN any more than a VPN.

I see no reason people shouldn't allowed to build interconnects not connected to the wider internet and charge for their use.

I'm not necessarily against the concept in every case. But where do you draw the line between that, and just an alternative internet?

Ok, and? That’s not a sin or anything.

For what it’s worth there is definitely a market for this stuff. Starlink, hello?

There's definitely a market for human chattel slavery. Some have argued that's not a sin, too.

Just to make sure I parse your words correctly, you are equating private backbones with human slavery?

Yeah that seems very reasonable and obviously not filled to the brim with a ridiculous level of hyperbole.

>Just to make sure I parse your words correctly, you are equating private backbones with human slavery?

No, you are parsing his words incorrectly.

Bullshit.

He is clearly equating the market demand for current-day private backbones to society's prior demand for human slavery. That's a ludicrous comparison.

If you think these two things are anywhere nearly the same, you are a mega dumbshit.

No, he is pointing out that 'there is a market for it therefore it is not a sin' is a shitty argument because there is a a market for blatantly amoral things. You don't understand how analogies work.