The argument "We've lost net neutrality because some people refuse hosting / claim domains" misses the definition of net-neutrality.
Specifically, net-neutrality is about treating all traffic the same.
It would be horrible if ISPs refused, on their own initiative, to serve certain traffic. However, this is a case of people refusing to host.
Now maybe hosting at `web-scale' is only possible with such a small set of providers as to be an issue, but that is not relevant to the net-neutrality discussion.
It would be horrible if ISPs refused, on their own initiative, to serve certain traffic. However, this is a case of people refusing to host. Now maybe hosting at `web-scale' is only possible with such a small set of providers as to be an issue, but that is not relevant to the net-neutrality discussion.