So my understanding is that the law was broken because the FCC's rules change was arbitrary, rather than motivated by facts, and because they ignored expert commentary (including from the people who created the technologies discussed in the FCC's analysis). The final rules did cite various comments, from both ISPs and independent experts (myself included), but the pattern was pretty obvious: anything that does not support the FCC's case is dismissed as "not persuasive" while supportive comments from ISPs are cited as proof that the change is necessary.
It was all for show; from the beginning the FCC basically said that they were not at all interested in comments about technical facts, only about their legal authority based on the technical analysis they presented in their proposed rule change (i.e. they can make any claims about facts to justify a change in the regulations). The commissioners already made up their minds before opening the comment period and never intended to have comments affect their decisions. Whether or not that is allowed by the law is now a matter for the courts to decide.
This is part of why the Obama era's regulatory changes in e.g. telecoms and finance reform took so long to get through the system - they dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's. This is a much more durable way of changing things than an executive order, since it can't be overturned on the whim of the next president.
Mozilla does great work in raising awareness of these issues however until every Joe Bloggs and Susan Someone takes their own stand against companies, governments and other centralised organisations, then it's going to be a very hard battle.
How do we do that? Maybe start by not making it an issue that only geeks or tech savvy types are outraged about.
Building the Common Voice corpus is critical to generating highly accurate transcriptions, check it out at https://voice.mozilla.org
If we do nothing, there will be no large organization standing up to build foundational technology outside of corporate siloes.
I guess in a way it's similar to having capital. If you don't have any money, it's hard to start a business. Similarly, if you have no data, maybe in the future it will be hard to start a business as well.
There's still a long way to go to reach that point, but I think we are seeing the start of it. For example, it's pretty hard to build an alternative to GMaps/Apple Maps. Even if you have a novel take on how mapping data could be used, you'd still first need the data to build the technology around it.
How do you fight that? Should it be fought? Or should we just accept it as a new requirement of building a business? In addition to starting with a good team (i.e. industry experts) and having money, you now need to immediately start building as wide of a dataset as you can.
The more data they have, the better-targeted advertising they can provide, because that data is more or less volunteered by their users even if conpanies don’t know to ask for it.
For most of the big companies, I’d say their UX is stuck in local maxima and can’t really become orders of magnitude better due to risk aversion — you’ll never collect the data that there’s a bigger maximum somewhere else that way. A smaller company willing to take risks can find those bigger maxima much more easily.
Just look at how much worse Google recently made the GMail UI.
Meanwhile, Apple has no scouts, a bad geocoder from OSM (compared to Google's), but notably better maps (on average) from all the footwork OSM does to import maps regularly from each of the thousanda of counties across the US.
Outside the US, countries like Germany literally use OSM as their offical map for plotting land ownership, utilities and numerous other functions.
Where Apple is dying is the lack of an Apple Scouts program and having massive teams in India essentially importing data from OSM, one other sketchy map vendor that is a decade out of date and user reports. The former should be automated, as Apple Maps India literally does not comply with the standards defined by Apple stateside, and there is no value being added in this process of manually importing map data.
I don't think that fighting back with specific technologies and products (which all come and go) is a good solution. It needs to be encoded in law. If mozilla makes a thing that is 'free and open', and it becomes popular enough, what happens when a Google or Amazon decides to throw serious money at acquiring it (or even Mozilla) so that they can control it? Nothing would prevent that.
[edit: found the following link]
Just like with telecoms restricting and throttling access, these silos of technology are holding back progress in numerous fields, hurting the disabled and kneecaping upstart projects and businesses that may challege their dominance.
I also think that in order to unite the wide public for a cause, we should have a clear message about the dangers of no neutrality being explainable to a kid.
But I wonder what is the biggest danger we try to warn about?
Some people think its just about not having bandwidth to watch 4k videos. Some people think its about lack of privacy.
Others mostly disturbed by the possibility of losing our very access to information itself. That is, public knowledge being manipulated. What does that mean for society?
As far as I can tell they throttled Netflix and the people didn't move.
They should take the momentum of these values and launch an alternative to gmail.
The Mozilla Information Trust Initiative : http://archive.is/jcJWg
That does not make it any better. So what if they did finally release the sources for the plugin (only took them a year or two to do). They have not released the server component. They are also using it to push ADs that I don't want. I should not have to toggle 50 different things and remove a bunch of stuff before I can use Firefox and then the next update undoes all of that.
First they came for the CEO because he used personal funds to support things that we did not agree with and I spoke out in support of him as a gay man because Free Speech is important. Then they came for the browser, because they believe in a "Free and Open Web"..."Privacy".."Truth":
* EME (can't have a Free and Open web without DRM)
* Pocket (just save pages with this non-free service in the cloud, trust us...we care about privacy)
* Studies (pushed a malicious plugin that you were not suppose to know about)
* Cloudflare DNS (TRR) (we must ignore all system DNS settings at all cost because we trust CloudFlare)
* telemetry (we can't trust the user really wants to disable it)
* Ministry of Truth  (everyone trusts Mozilla to be the gatekeeper)
The laundry list of things keeps growing and these issues fall on deaf ears. "Well, you can fork...change things" I should not have to maintain my own fork of a now shitty browser just so that malicious features are removed or stay turned off.
Hacker News was the last and final place on the Web that I go and participate. I dumped Facebook 8 years ago and I have been kicked off of Reddit (remember when Snowden news articles from mainstream sources were banned from r/technology?). I guess my best bet is to move to an island so I don't trigger or bother the fine folks of Hacker News / YCombinator...
 The Mozilla Information Trust Initiative : http://archive.is/jcJWg
* Assume the user knows what they are doing, and really mean to override anything. Do not try to outguess the user.
* By default, assume that the remote server (and the data received from the remote server) is hostile (even if it is HTTPS).
* You have enough ropes to hang yourself, and also a few more just in case.
* Make every program a filter.
The author of your linked article, Katharina Borchert, is clearly a far-left progressive activist based on her twitter feed . She is also the "Chief Open Innovation Officer" at Mozilla and formerly the CEO of Spiegel Online. She retweets Sleeping Giants , a progressive activist organization which orchestrates campaigns to bully corporate entities into silencing right-wing outlets. It's not surprising that a former journalist will look at the internet climate and come to the conclusion that people need to be sheltered from alternative media and inaccurate reporting, while ignoring the fact that the trust in mainstream media is at an all-time low.
Knowing that this person and her values are at the helm of Mozilla is disappointing. The fact that they're trying to integrate technology into the browser which may ultimately be seized by organizations like Sleeping Giants to control online speech is terrifying.
I think Net Neutrality has been a colossal ruse in a power struggle between Silicon Valley and the ISPs. The tech giants warn of a hypothetical threat posed by ISPs, all while showing signs of how dangerously unchecked their own power is. They act like they're sticking up for the small businesses, when in all actuality, repealing Net Neutrality probably makes small businesses more competitive. They warn about how power would keep getting consolidated, when their modus operandi is to snatch up every startup the second it shows promise.