Officially the Democratic Party supports two resolutions that would overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s vote to end net neutrality rules. However, there is serious lobbying to defend the FCC's position.

But rather than an organic expression of policy preferences by disparate Twitter users, the wave of messages started as an online advertising campaign by the Progressive Policy Institute, a centrist think tank affiliated with the Democratic Party that has consistently opposed net neutrality regulations imposed by the FCC.
Lindsay Mark Lewis, executive director of the Progressive Policy Institute, told HuffPost that the advocacy campaign is meant to target “pragmatic Members of Congress” in pursuit of a “real legislative solution” to net neutrality.

You would think a place named the Progressive Policy Institute wouldn't be a corporate tool, but then labels are meaningless in politics.
Remember how Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine were "progressive"? Me neither.

Increasingly these days, the term is being dumbed down into utter meaninglessness.

Remember how Democratic progressives were horrified when Trump took us out of the Paris Climate accord? Even corporations didn't want him to do it.

Even major coal companies like Peabody and Cloud Peak urged Trump to stay in the agreement, fearing lost government support for expensive “carbon capture” technology and lost access to foreign markets. Many of these outfits are bêtes noires to the left, understandably. They include fossil fuel producers that have harmed the environment, Wall Street institutions that have exacerbated economic inequality, and corporations that have practiced extreme tax avoidance.
Yet when it came to an issue of critical importance to the fate of the planet, these corporations fought on the right side of history. Progressives should take note, as they need all the help they can get.

Right. Progressives should take note, but not for that. It should be obvious that if you are standing on the same side as the fossil fuel industry, then the Paris accord isn't worth the paper it is written on.

The Paris agreement has parts that are specific and parts that are binding; but never both at the same time.

Finally, there is the McResistance, a supposedly "progressive" cause. This headline says it all.

The Resistance Will Be … Underwritten By Corporations
A grassroots fundraising strategy isn’t enough. Democrats need the big money.

Like the Paris Climate accord, the McResistance will never endanger it's corporate sponsors.

On the floor, California’s Bob Mulholland, after conceding, “I’m not a member of Mother Teresa’s sisters’ organization. I am a member of the Democratic Party” swam against the populist tide: “All those corporations in North Carolina, who stood up for the Democratic Party platform against the law there to try to outlaw or discriminate against transgender [people], why should the Democratic Party say now, ‘Hey, great what you did, but we’re not gonna take your contributions?’” Charles Stormont of Utah contended Democrats can safely accept money from corporations “as long as they understand I will treat them no differently because of it” while warning, “We cannot afford not to take corporate money, or we disappear.”

That's a laughable claim and everyone knows it.
As for transgender people, they deserve all the support they can get. But transgender bathrooms are no danger to corporate profits, corporate power, or the ruling elite.
If you are happy with the status quo, then this limited definition of "progressive" should be fine with you. But if you think our world needs to change, then maybe "progressive" isn't a strong enough word.
I like the word "socialist".