Of course. You didn't contribute at all. You're just poking and complaining. If you have something I find worth considering, you'll get an upvote. Is there anything else you'd like to whine about for everyone to see?
Your comment.
My stance is that companies cannot be trusted to act reasonably or ethically and so must be forced to do so.
From the article.
Rules barring American internet service providers from treating online traffic differently have officially been lifted.
To which your response was
Good
These statments appear to directly conflict. hence my question.
Have an upvote and a lack of downvote on the other comment. Although I might recommend in the future making your comment a little more pointed instead of looking like you were threadjacking.
My response isn't just "good." I explained quite clearly why I think it's a good thing and I'll repeat it again for you: such regulations with broad and serious reach should not be something that a board of a few people can control at a whim. It should not be possible for one person (in this case, the president) to be able to appoint one person that can sway a few others to make such a large change or write an executive order that affects nearly every consumer. Such regulations should be codified into law where it belongs. Things like "net neutrality" should be difficult to implement and equally difficult to remove. That means that it needs to be run through congress (state or federal) as a law, not something that can be changed at a whim regardless of what the end decision is.
By way of example, it is not possible or acceptable for the president to appoint a single person that could make the consumption of raw milk legal or illegal. That should be legislated first at the state level. Failing that, it should be legislated by Congress. It should not be regulated by a single person influencing a handful of other people.
No reply, just a downvote.