Social and Net Neutrality
Net neutrality has been around the common people for many years. To begin, net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers should enable all access to the contents on the internet, usually with a set charge. In addition, this idea had sparked the idea of social-media neutrality, which media sites should allow every individual’s post to be distributed equally. Unfortunately, the net neutrality protection law has been repealed recently by the FCC. Now, the internet service providers may charge a fee for each individual sites that an individual utilize, and if the bill hasn’t been paid for a certain site, such as Netflix, the content of that site would be blocked by your ISP. The question that is debating now is should we bring back net neutrality?
Since the repeal of the net neutrality protection, many people had started to worry because they may end up paying more for their internet usage. Therefore, the idea of net neutrality has been largely supported
…show more content…
by the public since its a buy once and get all deal. But however, in my opinion, the existence of social and net neutrality should depend on the companies and organizations. In the U.S, capitalism is one of our major economic systems. Therefore, the way on how the services are charged, depends on the companies. In previous years, due to the net neutrality protection, companies are under government regulations, which in a way, it has violated our economic system. Because of this protection, companies couldn’t decide charge services in their own way. The common people value net neutrality because of the massive use of the internet.
Because of this, people have been recommending social-media neutrality. In an article that is called “What about Social-media Neutrality” described that social media sites limiting the range that an individual post could reach. “If you post a Facebook update without boosting-paying for it- the post may reach between 1% and 5% of the people who like your page. It probably won’t be seen by anyone who doesn’t already follow you on social media, unless a bunch of your fans or friends repost it. But if you boost that same post for $10, Facebook will show it to hundreds or thousands more customers”(Gallant). Again, this idea would interfere with how the media site makes profits. If we allow every posts to be distributed equally, then media sites, such as Facebook, would end up losing large amounts of their wealth for our benefits. Therefore, I don’t agree on the idea of social-media
technology. I would say that net neutrality is a great thing to have in our society. It enables all access to the internet, and it only charges once per month at a constant amount for its service. Without realizing, this protection had allowed our society to be largely involved on the internet. However, I would still say that net neutrality protection shouldn’t exist, nor does the new idea of social-media neutrality. I believe that even without net neutrality protection, the ISP would still operate the same way as usual. Before the net neutrality protection has been ratified, the ISP had already started to open up all the access to the internet. The protection law is only there to let the ISP services stay that way. Plus, in the world of capitalism, competition is a huge hit. Most likely than not, the ISP would still allow all access to users because of the demand they have on net neutrality. Social media and net neutrality should depend on the organizations and the companies. I believe that even with them blocking some contents, individuals would still satisfy the contents they have. Being able to enjoy all contents or to distribute post equally would be very beneficial, but the companies and organizations needs to agree to the concept.
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.
The Internet came to be because of the user. Without the user, there is no World Wide Web. It is a set of links and words all created by a group of users, a forum or a community (Weinberger 96). The concept of net neutrality is the affirming concept behind the openness of the net (Vinton Cerf). Vinton Cerf stated, “The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. A lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive” (Vinton Cerf). Moreover, consumers would be protected under a monopolistic market due to network neutrality (Opposing Views). The Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com state that in a perfect world there would be a variable amount of high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers plenty of choices. This would provide a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open concept. However, the world is imperfect and a mediator is needed to ensure networks remain open and the incentives to innovate and invest will continue to exist (Opposing Views). Lastly, there is an existence of fast and slow lanes without the implementation of network neutrality (Owen 7). This ...
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
According to Nair (2011), “The social media property on the web is exploding and fast becoming a necessary part of the arsenal of any organization. It took 38 years for the radio to attract 50 million listeners, and 13 years for television to gain the attention of 50 million viewers. The Internet took only four years to attract 50 million participants, and Facebook reached 50 million participants in only one-and-a-half years. Facebook, which was originally designed for Harvard students and launched in 2004, has become a phenomenal example of social engagement. By 2009, Facebook had already achieved 100 million monthly active users covering age groups from 13 to 65; by the end of 2010, there were more than 500 million users. (p. 46) With so many people connected through social media and since businesses are dependent on people to thrive, they have been impacted both positively and negatively.
The article was about net neutrality. The main voice of the article was our own Anooha Dasari and the article explained her efforts to keep net neutrality. Anooha described the absence of net neutrality as “dangerous” she states “It has formulated my personality, opinions and political ideology. If it is controlled, my generation of students could be inclined to be just on one part of the spectrum. That’s dangerous.” She then contacted United States representatives to convince them to keep the internet free of persuasion. The article then expanded from Anooha and explained that this as being largely debated all across America and not just in Mundelein High School. The end of the article circled back to Anooha and stated that she will forever
Currently, social media plays a significant role in our everyday lives and the way people in society interacts with one another. A few years ago, before its influence reached the point where it is now, the large platforms such as Facebook or Twitter which function was merely to keep family and friends connected no matter where they were or what they were doing, and the requirements were an internet connection and a smart phone or a computer. People would share pictures or posts to keep others “updated” on their lives and what they were thinking. Now social media platforms are far more complicated. In various of them, such as Instagram or Snapchat, it is not enough to only share a picture or video of your day, but it is almost a requirement and people are pushed to take an extra mile further away and make yourself appear interesting in the eyes of others. The “feed” requires to be eye catching, the captions should be memorable, the places one goes to ought to look way better than they actually are, you have to include friends in such posts to prove one have a social life outside of the phone. The importance of the number of followers, likes or viewers
From music to television, censorship has played a major role in how the public is exposed to certain material. Now that our world is entering into a new technology era, the Internet is now in the middle of the censorship issue. Internet access is now one of the fastest ways to communicate with others, obtain information on virtually anything, and purchase items without having to leave your home. As more and more people get connected to this cyber superhighway, concern for the content of material has become a big issue. Since so many children are exposed to the Internet, some material should not be accessible with a simple click of a mouse. In order to protect our younger people from being exposed to mature and explicit material over the Internet, these sites should have a warning posted before one can go into the site.
On thursday The Federal Communications Commission voted to end net neutrality. A Lot of people were not happy with their decision, some states and interest groups are planning to sue. Back in october 29, 2007 Barack Obama pledged support for net neutrality to protect free and open internet, later on in 2015 the FCC voted in favor of strong net neutrality rules to keep the internet open and free. Now 3 men decided to go against it causing the end of net neutrality and ignoring 83% of peoples wishes.
On 16th of December 1949, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed. Although we want governments and regimes to abide with the articles not all do. Our government is formed to protect us and to provide every citizen, infrastructure in order to make the person able to live. However our governments also care for themselves as well. They want to stay in power thus they have to protect their reputation. This is where internet censorship steps in. Although censoring some sites is reasonable, some are not. If a site on the internet criticizes the government and if this happens in a country where the government is somewhat oppressive, the site is blocked to access. I believe the level of tolerance towards criticism of a government can be found by the internet censorship in that country. We can categorize these types of governments into five: No or few censorship, normal amounts of censorship, above normal, high amount of censorship and extreme amounts of censorship. I am going to focus about the last three levels. For these levels Republic of Turkey, People’s Republic of China and Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are examples I am going to talk about. These examples would be coinciding with the levels respectively.
Net neutrality was the big talk towards the end of 2017. Taking away net neutrality would cause chaos in my opinion. Making schools and other organizations pay to use technology only discourages them from doing so which is a major step backwards in such a technological point in time. The world is constantly creating new ways to implement technology to our everyday lives and charging us to do so is not a step in the right direction. Saying that getting rid of net neutrality will do away with discrimination is absurd. Discrimination was around way before the internet was but instead we once again have one political party trying to undermine the other by playing the victim. I do agree that it isn’t right that such huge corporations such as
The internet has been one of the most influential technological advancements of the twenty-first century. It is in millions of homes, schools, and workplaces. The internet offers not only a way of communicating with people around the world, but also a link to information, shopping, chatting, searching, and maps. This freedom to be anyone and to "go" anywhere right from the comfort of home has become a cherished item. However, there is always a down side to every up. Because of the freedom to post anything and access anything on the internet, the issue of regulation has arisen; for example, what should and should not be allowed on the internet? Who has the right to regulate this space that we cherish for its freedom?
Technology has advance so much since the old days. We see technology everywhere but one major thing that has change since back then into now has been the internet usage. Believe it or not internet is being used everywhere. First, it was used in desktops now is on laptops, cellphones, and tablets and even on TV and Video games. Internet, is very bad for society but three major reasons why is bad is due to many deaths, creating health issues, and bullying.
Accessing the cyberspace is the first right should be granted in order to have privilege of and exercise the rest of the human rights on the internet. The internet has a very big impact in people’s life and what they have become today, especially with all the opportunities this medium provide for them to exercise their basic human rights. It has allowed the freedom of many voices to be heard in ways that was merely impossible before this revolution. Not only it has given people the rights to express and associate, but also the right to education as it allows to access many educational materials. In fact, accessing this virtual place has become a necessity to fulfill many other human rights including the right to work, and the right to take part in country’s government. Therefore, internet access should be a public right that ensure information and internet accessibility, usability, and availability for all people regardless of gender, place, and income.
On social media, each individual has the power to be influential and important. There is a freedom of expression on social media that we are allowed to express. A user on Facebook can post anything they want or anything they want for free.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Social media is becoming the most important and influential technological advancement in our country since the internet was created in the 1960s. For the longest time people were only limited to e-mails to make communication to one another and there were no large scale social media sites available. However, the internet started taking off in the early 2000s as new generations started bringing to the table new and more advanced ideas. Facebook was invented in 2004, where people were able to connect with whoever they wanted throughout the world to communicate and be able to share anything. On their