That's dodging the question. Let's say they weren't spewing hatred/fascism, and were reporting on critical information that Americans need to know. But AT&T blocks them. Is the response still going to be "AT&T is private, so it's okay because private companies can do whatever they want"?
>so it's okay because private companies can do whatever they want
The point is they can't do whatever they want, just like Google/FB/Amazon actually can't do whatever they want.
They can only do it if it's the will of the majority of their customers, employees and shareholders. Jack Dorsey or Jeff Bezos can't make decisions like this unilaterally without the support of all those parties.
The CEO of CloudFlare famously said that the reason he decided to deplatform Daily Stormer (after previously saying he would not deplatform them) was because one morning he woke up in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the internet. Literally all it took was one CEO waking up on the wrong side of the bed one morning. It seems entirely inaccurate to say that Dorsey or Bezos couldn't make a decision unilaterally like that if they really wanted.
I'm not sure about Twitter, but Bezos is the majority shareholder at Amazon and if he really wanted to, could make the decision to ban anyone he wants and nobody would legally be able to stop him, will of the employees/shareholders/public be damned.
I can almost guarantee you he wouldn’t have done it and got away with it if he didn’t know his decision was going to be popular among their employees and shareholders.
Of course he made a statement that made himself sound courageous, but it was the easiest decision ever and a PR move lol.
>If AT&T terminates customers’ access to websites, customers will go to Verizon etc.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the ISP market in the US, but the point here is that there are many areas in which customers cannot switch to another ISP. If AT&T were to block websites, those customers would have zero ability to access them. Hence the "some companies are too big and influential" bit.
I support net neutrality and think internet should be a utility and treats all websites the same.
But if a website is willingly violating terms of service defined by the provider (hosting child pornography, spreading racism etc), I support the IPS to block access or whatever.
The fact that some users have no alternative is another problem.
You fundamentally misunderstand the political divide, if you think that HuffPo is not viewed as "spewing hatred and fascism".
It's not hatred towards things you like, or what you view as fascism, but I can assure you that the viewpoints it espouses are seen as fascist and oppressive to those who disagree.
I’ll be fine if these news sites were spewing hatred and fascism.