This particular image got viral attention in the media around 27 October 2017 due to its usefulness as an illustration for explaining the concept of net neutrality. I documented some of the media mentions in the file description. I know that this image is new, but I think that it would not be possible to find any other image with the history of discussion in media that this one has. Also, "net neutrality" is a difficult concept to illustrate, so it is unlikely that many relevant images exist. -- Blue Rasberry (talk)
Comment Quick thought: This shows pretty much the opposite of net neutrality. You might want to adjust the scope accordingly and probably make it a bit more specific. --El Grafo (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: I agree - this image depicts the opposite of net neutrality. This image the focus of a net neutrality protest; it is challenging for net neutrality advocates to depict net neutrality because it is currently the norm. Instead, depictions of net neutrality typically are like this image, which depict its absence. There is a category for Category:Anti-smoking; similarly, I could make a category called "anti-net-neutrality" and that would be a more accurate category. However, there is no term for "anti-neutrality". As with many corporate responses, big players attempt to co-opt the term and change its definition, so ISPs typically call what this image depicts "net neutrality". There can be nuance here but I have presented evidence that in conversations about "net neutrality", this image is very popular. Should we coin a new term like "anti-net neutrality"? Blue Rasberry (talk)15:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: sorry, I think I didn't make myself clear. I'm not suggesting to invent a new term or create a new category, I'm just proposing to change the scope. Scopes have to be linked to a category (or something else like a gallery), but they don't have to use the same wording. Suggest to still link it to Category:Net neutrality, but call the scope it something like "ISP service packages without/in the absence of/lacking net neutrality". That would give a better description of what this is about and at the same time leave the plain "Net neutrality" scope available for things like File:La neutralité du net en une image.jpg. --El Grafo (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've looked at it a bit closer, the term en:Net bias seems to be pretty much the opposite of net neutrality, so maybe create a category for that and use it as (part of) the scope? Maybe something like "ISP service packages under net bias"? But I'm not sure about how established that term actually is … --El Grafo (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El Grafo: Thanks for all the feedback. I think this nomination should rest and mature further. I posted some comments on that "net bias" article - I agree, that term is not established as only a few of the article's cited sources actually use that term. Perhaps after some time politics will settle and the correct categorization will be more certain. Thanks for talking this through. I agree with you that something seems off about evaluating this in a "net neutrality" category. Blue Rasberry (talk)22:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
