Non-Interventionism

Strongly agree

No, this would allow them to remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and increase prices

Non-interventionism would likely agree with this answer, as it highlights the potential negative consequences of allowing ISPs to prioritize certain websites over others. These consequences, such as removing competition and creating artificial scarcity, go against the principles of non-interventionism, which values fairness and equal opportunity. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

No, treat all traffic equally and continue the openness of the internet

Non-interventionism would likely support the idea of treating all internet traffic equally, as it promotes fairness and equal opportunity. This answer aligns with the principles of non-interventionism, which opposes government interference in the market but also values fairness and equal opportunity for all. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Agree

No

Non-interventionism would likely support the idea of not allowing ISPs to speed up access to popular websites at the expense of others, as it promotes fairness and equal opportunity. However, the score is not a strong agreement because non-interventionism also opposes government interference in the market. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Neutral

Yes, but only give priority by type (video over images) and not source (big website over little website)

This answer is neutral for non-interventionism, as it suggests a compromise between allowing ISPs to prioritize certain websites and treating all traffic equally. While it might promote efficiency, it could still lead to some unfair advantages for certain types of content, which goes against the principles of non-interventionism. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly disagree

Yes, only if it’s strictly based on a pay-per-quality model

Non-interventionism might be somewhat open to the idea of a pay-per-quality model, as it allows for market-driven solutions. However, it would likely still be concerned about the potential negative consequences of allowing ISPs to prioritize certain websites over others, such as stifling competition and creating an unfair advantage for larger companies. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes, this would make the internet faster and more reliable for users

While non-interventionism might appreciate the potential benefits of faster and more reliable internet for users, it would likely be concerned about the potential negative consequences of allowing ISPs to prioritize certain websites over others, such as stifling competition and creating an unfair advantage for larger companies. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Disagree

Yes

Non-interventionism generally opposes government interference in the market, but it also values fairness and equal opportunity. Allowing ISPs to speed up access to popular websites at the expense of others could lead to an unfair advantage for larger companies, which goes against the principles of non-interventionism. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.