"The internet has possibly been society’s biggest game changer. Without physical wires, people around the world can become connected instantly. Information can be spread faster than lightning and new pockets of the internet, with new purposes and effects, pop up every hour. The internet is often seen as something that needs restriction. Through the anonymity of a keyboard, people may be willing to get very nasty with one another where they would not in real life. There have been many calls for a crackdown on what can be said over electronic interfaces. There has also been controversy recently regarding Net Neutrality, the rule by which Internet Service Providers (ISPs) must treat all internet traffic equally across their networks. The ISPs …show more content…
In 2015, online purchases in the US totaled $350 billion and accounted for about a tenth of all retail purchases. As anyone could see, this is a rising trend and is only expected to continue rising into the electronics-rich future. Net Neutrality is so vital because of the need to protect small businesses. If Net Neutrality were not in play, ISPs could charge companies extra fees to be put in an internet “fast lane†where consumers could more easily visit their websites. For a big corporation, such as Netflix, Amazon, Google, etc., the fee is not actually that big a deal. However, if for small business owners, with modest means but a hopeful web presence, a fee to get decent bandwidth to your website could be cripplingly large. A model without Net Neutrality leaves the internet favoring large, well-established businesses, restricting the traffic, and thereby the purchases, to those who already have plenty of business. To be frank, the attempt to destroy Net Neutrality also represents a great degree of greed on the part of the ISPs, who seemingly wish to double dip in their business by charging for internet access on the end of the user and the website. Two of the largest internet providers, AT&T and Comcast are worth $249.3 billion and $193.5 billion, respectively. They are plenty large and profitable with Net Neutrality in place. In this sense, it is the government’s job, probably mostly at …show more content…
Once again, here the government finds that it should take some kind of action, but in defense of free speech this time. After the violent riots in Charlottesville, Virginia, many large online forums and domain hosts, including Google, Facebook, and GoDaddy made efforts to suppress white supremacists that could get attention on their platforms. The motive for the companies to suppress these radicals was clear: the white supremacists are very unpopular, and they wanted to disassociate with them. However, given how important the internet is to having a voice in the modern world, these companies must be considered, at least on issues like this, as a little less than fully private, independent companies. Google, on its own, has hold of 80% of the online search market. Quieting people on the internet for their unpopular opinion, even if done by a private company, is tantamount to repressing their free speech, and the government, once again at the federal level, should be responsible for checking these affronts to free speech. That is not to say that content on the internet is completely unrestricted. Things illegal outside of the internet, such as legitimate threats, inciting riots, or illegal media paraphernalia, should remain prohibited on the
When we think of those skilled in the art of rhetoric, we often jump to those we know are trying to convince us of something, like politicians, salesmen, lawyers, etc. We do not always consider corporate CEOs part of that group though Netflix CEO, Reed Hastings, would have us believing another thing. On March 20th, 2014, Hastings published an article titled “Internet Tolls And The Case For Strong Net Neutrality” on Netflix’s official blog. Just under a month before the blog was posted, Netflix settled a deal paying Comcast, America’s largest cable and Internet service provider (ISP), for faster and more reliable service to Comcast’s subscribers (Cohen and Wyatt). These “internet tolls” go against the culture of net neutrality in America, which in its essence is when no piece of information is prioritized over another on broadband networks. Hastings took to their blog to advocate for net neutrality and against abusive ISPs. Whether he was conscious of his rhetorical finesse or not, he wrote quite convincingly thus turning this blog into an excellent rhetorical artifact. Reed Hastings’ blog post aims to convince American Internet consumers that strong net neutrality is important by appealing to their values of choice, frugality and empathy while simultaneously making ISPs seem ill intentioned and Netflix seem honorable.
Although the net neutrality debate didn’t come into the spot light so long ago, it has sparked controversy in the communications world. This concept provides a positive impact to the consumers, competition and network owners/internet service providers. It broadens the aspect of equality, which the open Internet was first based on. The profound effects on the aforementioned players provide a supported purpose to regulate the notion of net neutrality.
The internet is a place where people can freely express their political or other views for people to see. A recent study, Freedom of Net, by the activist group Freedom House shows both the immense censorship of information around the world and the declining freedom of information around the world, “Two-thirds of all internet users, 67 per cent, live in countries where criticism of the government, military, or ruling family are subject to censorship” (APF & Bell). The report by Freedom House digs into the censorship of government criticism, military criticism, and negative views on the ruling family in two thirds of countries studied in the report with governments around the world are silencing the voices of people and their publications. By censoring the people's voices, the governments are able to control the population and their views on not only their own government, but also countries around the world. Governments around the world are stepping up their censorship of public information posted on social media by taking actions to suppress the publications before they even begin. The report by Freedom House shares how police around the world are arresting and punishing those who have taken to social media to complain about a topic that makes the country look bad. The report states: “Social media users face unprecedented penalties, as authorities in 38 countries made
Net Neutrality requires to give everyone access to everything on the internet. This means that your internet provider won’t charge you for using specific websites. But with this, companies will have the ability to charge you for using basic things such as email, Spotify and even YouTube. Fast and slow lanes will also be included which may vary depending of what packages you paid for. But that is just the beginning, being that with this they will be able to control what you are able to see and not, ending Freedom of Speech in the
There are over 2,405,518,376 internet users on a global scale. More than 50% of the world have a form of Internet censorship, and of those countries China, North Korea, Iran, and Vietnam heavily restrict its citizens. This recent topic has reached new heights in the US with the growing number of access to internet. More and more people are debating whether the internet should be censored. Internet censorship is the control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the internet. This would affect everyone and me. I specifically use the internet to read about controversial view and other information that gets ignored by the media or isn’t circulated anymore. Most of these sites would fall in the black list of censoring. A small percentage of users post conspicuous posts, graphic material, and infringing copyright links. Although inappropriate it shouldn’t demand internet censorship, because it goes against the individual rights of the people. Freedom of speech and press will be restricted by the government. To a point where people would be scared to express themselves, or spread information for they might be punished. Even if their opinion is erroneous and maleficent, it’s still that person’s opinion and he’s entitled to it. Same can be said for the common good everyone should be able to voice their opinions without censorship anywhere. Everyone should also have the access to any information on the internet. If anyone is offended by what is said on the internet, then they can remember to not visit the webpage next time and hold themselves accountable. This paper will examine the issue of internet censorship constituting a violation to the American people individual rights, common good, and the constitution.
In today’s society, free speech is a right guaranteed to every American in the U.S., but not all countries give their citizens that right. As computer and internet technology has grown, so too has the number of violations against free speech around the world. Some of these include censorship of the press by the government, punishment for speaking against the government, and punishment for voicing unpopular opinions. The computer and internet technology of the world is often used in these suppressions of free speech.
Net neutrality is essentially the freedom of internet users being able to access all networks and enjoy all web services. These services include applications, websites, content and platforms without any discrimination by the Internet Service Providers (Stiegler 2). The term also connotes that consumers should access all the legal information on the World Wide Web at an equal rate of speed. These ISPs include Comcast, Verizon, and AT &T Network. Disturbing net neutrality can have adverse access to internet users and businesses in various ways.
Freedom of expression is illustrated in the first amendment within the bill of rights. The first amendment is the right to have freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. In order to have a well working constitution the government shouldn’t even consider the thought of net neutrality. There are several court cases that justify freedom of press and expression. For example, the the case of John Zenger was charged with seditious libel but then later found innocent because the things he voiced in his writing was all valid information and did not violate them in any way.
Internet is a powerful tool that allows users to collaborate and interact with others all over the world conveniently and relatively safely. It has allowed education and trade to be accessed easily and quickly, but all these benefits do not come without very taxing costs. This is especially true when dealing with the likes of the Internet. Countries in the European Union and Asia have realized this and have taken action against the threat of net neutrality to protect their citizens, even at the cost of online privacy. Internet censorship is required to protect us from our opinions and vices. Every country should adopt Internet censorship and regulation since it improves society by reducing pornography, racism/prejudice, and online identity theft.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) works diligently to overthrow every attempt at placing some sort of filter or censorship requirements on the internet. They believe that the things censored are protected by the constitution. The court case ALA v. Pataki (1997) held that internet users must be protected from, “inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the internet altogether” (ACLU, 2017). Our freedom of speech is not absolute, so restricting where people are able to get access to these materials does not affect one’s right to speak freely, rather where they speak
Net Neutrality has been a rising topic of debate in recent months, and many people still have no idea what it is exactly. Net Neutrality is the idea that ISP’s- or Internet service providers, Should make it so people have access to all data on the internet without any discrimination or interference. That everyone should be created equal. There are supporters both for and against Net Neutrality. Those who support Net Neutrality are the common internet users.
A tactic that has been used by companies within the cable industry is to lower internet speeds when consumers stream services like Netflix in order to diminish their appeal. The government has been reviewing the creation of new regulations that would prohibit this practice. These net neutrality regulations would reclassify these providers from information service providers to utility providers. This reclassification would make it so that there are much stricter standards by which companies are required to provide access and would disallow the throttling of internet speeds. Perhaps the largest threat that is facing the cable industry is from nontraditional competition.
In the early days of the Internet, it is open to all of the people. The user of the Internet can obtain the net resource through pay some reasonable fee. It makes small companies can compete fairy with big companies. To explain it in simple, Net Neutrality is the way to ensure that all websites or videos can loaded in the same speed.
Eighty-seven percent of Americans use the internet today. This is a 187.1 percent increase from the year 2000. This is a number that has nearly tripled in size in just fifteen years. Americans use the internet for many reasons as well. We use various sites for entertainment including Netflix or Hulu for streaming movies and TV shows or Facebook or Twitter for social media.
Free speech on the Internet is a very controversial subject and has been the key problem surrounding the Internet today. The attempt to regulate and govern the Internet is still pursued by government officials. This subject has been intensified due to terrorist attacks against the United States and around world within the past years. The government believes that by regulating the Internet, it will protect the general public from criminal actions and eliminate the exposure of children to pornography or vulgar language. Senator Jim Exon of ...