Skip to main content

Governing of the Internet

Net neutrality is a serious and newer problem in our modern world. It is defined in the dictionary as "the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites." The large issue at hand is that when you go on the internet, you expect to be connected to any website or place of your choosing, you should be completely in control of your own experience while on the internet. You should be allowed to have access to anything at anytime, that is essentially what net neutrality is. Net neutrality should stop or prohibit internet service provides, for example: Verizon, from from blocking, slowing down or speeding up based on certain content or websites you would like to access. Everything should systematically be fair and equal.
The problem now is that the Trump administration wants to regulate or stop net neutrality, particularly his FCC chairman, Ajit Pai. Without net neutrality, the internet would be destroyed and become regulated. We would lose our open internet, which is our free right to have access to. Phone companies and cable companies would be in control of where we access our information, which is a large and terrifying threat to our democracy. Historically marginalized groups would be shut out, and we would enter a regressive era. Without net neutrality, social movement would die out, the oppressed would become further oppressed and we would lose what our country was founded on, freedom.
What do you think about the Trump Administration trying to regulate our access to certain content and websites on the internet?

Press, Free. “Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now.” Free Press, www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now


Comments

  1. AnonymousNovember 28, 2017 at 9:27 AM

    While I agree that eliminating net neutrality would be a big mistake, I would like to point out that the Supreme Court has decided the First Amendment does not guarantee access to information. So I don't think it is completely accurate to say that people have the right to internet. That does not mean that that right should not exist, it probably should because our ability to access the internet is directly connected to expression, which we do have the right to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousNovember 30, 2017 at 7:46 AM


    Getting rid of net neutrality would be a terrible disservice to the American people. The question is that should some information be required or better wording it should it be required that we get access to some information? That is the thing that would ask you is that should there be some sort of more level playing field when it comes to information?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more