The best way to break the internet has already been done. It was when the CEO of CloudFlare proved that he had the ability to remove a site from the internet, simply because he didn't like it. When he did a lot of people applauded it by saying "but they are Nazis" - which is true - but isn't a defense of what he did.
Net Neutrality is dead - either by the FCC mandating it, or by Silicon Valley choosing which viewpoints are "allowed" within their walled gardens, which are quickly taking up more and more of the internet.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding net neutrality. CloudFlare isn't an ISP. CloudFlare removing a website is analogous to Google removing a link or Facebook deleting a post. CloudFlare is merely a third-party internet service that companies are free to use or not.
ISPs are different because they are much more prone to monopoly and abuse compared to CloudFlare. For a real life example, consider this: it's one thing for a bakery to ban Neo-nazis, and another thing for the public bus system. Granted, ISPs aren't public utilities, but they are much closer to one than CloudFlare, because CloudFlare provides a service that lends itself to competition. If you don't like CloudFlare, the upfront costs of creating a competitor pale in comparison to the costs of creating a competitor to Comcast or Verizon.
To that end, CloudFlare banning Nazis is just as much the death of net neutrally as me getting fired for calling my boss a "kike" is the death of free speech.
That issue was definitely a free speech problem, however, not nearly as threatening to free speech as net neutrality. Websites can move to other hosting providers or even self-host in your own garage. Without NN, an ISP can completely cut off access to many, many sites very easily. Furthermore, there are very few ISPs in the USA with consolidated power as opposed to many web hosts in the world.
Not justifying CloudFlare's decision at all, just saying that I view dismantling NN as a much bigger threat.
Whether or not you believe him, the CEO claimed [1] he dropped them because they falsely claimed they had his support, not because of the content of their website.
It's worth noting that was the public statement.. the internal email[1] was less altruistic:
> "This was my decision. Our terms of service reserve the right for us to terminate users of our network at our sole discretion. My rationale for making this decision was simple: the people behind the Daily Stormer are assholes and I’d had enough.
> Let me be clear: this was an arbitrary decision. It was different than what I’d talked talked with our senior team about yesterday. I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet."
Wow. That is bold. In most ways I think that is an insane abuse of power. In others...I kind of respect it. Effectively it amounts to probably nothing, but for a period of time that's a proper GTFO
There's a difference between refusing to serve someone because of race, gender or sexual preference (none of which is a choice, and none of which causes harm to others) or religion (which is a choice but does not by definition cause harm to others though some religiously motivated actions may) vs refusing to serve someone because they actively advocate harming other people, which for one thing is a choice and for another is (duh) harmful.
This false equivalency around Nazis and free speech makes me vomit. If they could, the advocates of this extreme free speech position would force a descendant of holocaust survivors to host speech by people who actively advocate killing him or her.
It is only the government that has an obligation to censor no speech whatsoever (and even that obligation has limits when such speech leads to physical harm - the "'fire!' in a crowded theater" standard). Private entities have no such legal obligation.
And just as your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins, my moral obligation to broadcast someone else's speech ends where the threats or advocacy to harm people I care about (physically or even by boycotting, or reducing their civil rights and liberties) begin.
Edited to add: And in this category, I include (non-exhaustive list by any means)... slander/libel ("Jews eat babies!", "The gays are all child molesters!") - which is on its own harmful. Intention to intimidate ("Let's march through the minority neighborhood in white hoods", "Let's bring our firearms to Charlottesville and show them who's in charge") - which causes harm by interfering with people's right to go about their business free of fear and intimidation as long as they're not attacking anyone else.
I think there's an argument to be made that nobody has a moral obligation to provide a platform for any speech they disagree with. Whether or not you agree with that, I'd consider the above standard (threats/advocacy of harm, broadly construed) highly defensible.
Net Neutrality is dead - either by the FCC mandating it, or by Silicon Valley choosing which viewpoints are "allowed" within their walled gardens, which are quickly taking up more and more of the internet.