> GP listed them as examples

That wasn't clear at all.

As for the rest of what you wrote: It is something we need to keep in the back of our mind, but I am not afraid of that doom-scenario. I've been on the Internet long enough to know that it isn't the end of the world if a few large ISPs stop carrying [certain] information. Even if the whole USA would be forced to do that under this law it wouldn't be the end of the world. If anything, it provides a business opportunity for competitors (akin to the problem of tax evasion). It'd be great for ISPs in the EU, to name an example who'd benefit. OVH in Europe wouldn't mind such a bill. My point is that the Internet will work around it if a large enough group of people support it. A large enough group of people (in relevant positions) support tax evasion as well, so that's gonna stay existent for the time being.

There are also documented examples of ISPs as well as darknets which don't or would not censor (you'll find most ISPs operate like that unless it clearly is against the law). Although there's also grey area. It is one of the reasons why a website like TPB existed for so long.

The same with 8.8.8.8. Its in Google's interest to handle the vast majority of DNS requests. Why? It allows them to do better profiling. Why would they without a court order actively hamper their business interest? If a company like Google wants to it becomes a cat and mouse game. People swap to a different DNS such as a root-server, or a proper DNS server supporting DNSCurve (a much more secure option than Google DNS). I'm from a country where two large ISPs had to block TPB on DNS layer. Do you think it was effective? Later on, they had to filter certain IPs (also causing other websites to be unreachable). That was slightly more effective, but to this day the darknet, VPNs, and proxies still work both for TPB as well for piracy.

BTW, I find the example of Daily Stormer particularly weak. There's far more controversial as well as earlier documented examples related to piracy, terrorism, and CP. The question becomes: where do you draw the line? Because even in darknets, people draw lines. IPFS has a function to blacklist content.

What you can observe is that something like CP is difficult (virtually impossible) to obtain because the general public doesn't support it. Whereas piracy, is supported by a vast large group of people. Result: 1) If someone does have a significant amount of it they actively searched for it which severely weakens their legal defense 2) The darknet (and clearnet till some extend) carries piracy, but not so much CP. Supply & demand works even with moderate amounts of censorship because a large enough group of people agree (or disagree) with the cause. And, since I like that CP isn't easily available, it seems the system works, even on the darknet (note I've only verified it on Tor btw). Because CP is where I draw the line regarding freedom of speech; I want the people who produce and knowingly spread that busted. The vast majority of our civilisation as well as the vast majority of people who hold relevant positions at ISPs agree with that.

Yet, if freedom of speech was the holy grail, then it'd be available on the Internet. The elephant in the room is that freedom of speech both is not and was not the holy grail to begin with. There's nuances to such extreme ideal. I went into detail about 2 of these examples, but there are more available.

> What if the CEO of a single Tier 1 peering provider suddenly found some content so much in conflict with his values that they refuse to route the whole IP block?

This could already happen in the case of abuse, or lack of good peering agreement, but it did not happen in the case of spam. Instead we used blacklists like Spamhaus.