"But I can also see that it could be seen as a slippery slope to only allowing blessed video streaming or social media companies."
Correct. An outright ban of "a fast lane" prevents people from buying better service than the next person. I would like to be ABLE to do just that. If I pay more, I SHOULD get better service. Right?
On the other hand, the potential for abuse is ALSO there. So the fix is NOT to outright ban a service in which you pay for faster streaming [as an example] or "priority" content in general, but rather to REGULATE it such that competing services won't be "throttled" [including peer-to-peer and non-commercial traffic]. A typical regulation might allow a 2:1 boost of priority traffic as long as it's below 70% total capacity [for example], and that non-priority traffic would still be at a service level equivalent to what it was before. So it's not being "throttled", just "not boosted". And the company doing it might have to explicitly disclose everything they boost. Then consumers can choose.
"Net Neutrality" is yet another case of possible "well intentioned" ideas becoming anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, or anti-progress. So we're all stuck in the SAME PERFORMANCE GHETTO. Wheee.
No solution is perfect. THIS one is probably the worst of all available choices.