In a democracy like America, we should respect the common man’s desire for the freedom of the internet. The internet is and has always been a public service and fair access should be a basic right. Recently, the FCC revoked net neutrality, causing millions of people to remember how important their equal access to different websites is. Net neutrality allows everyone an equal chance at internet traffic to their respective sites. Without net neutrality, people would have a harder time being able to get viewers on their pages on the internet. This impinges free speech and the equality of open forum. Individuals with low prioritization in web traffic will be squandered and will not begin with potential for growth as popular websites get optimizations in site speed, advertisement, and more. Also, no net neutrality is a weird thing because it is unpredictable where it may lead us. There will be loopholes with the FCC’s repeal that may lead to mysterious problems in society. As an article writer, Kenneth Carter said, “When the conditions are more uncertain and the optimal outcome is unknown, then standards are appropriate. I worry that the FCC is about to set down a series of rules for network neutrality before the real threat and the optimal outcome is known.” So, as the FCC does not know what the aftermath may be, they shouldn’t have a place in changing the rules of net neutrality. He also explained what he would have hoped the FCC would say on net neutrality and he ended with this: “And, for at least a bit longer, we may preserve the Internet miracle: where technologists make decisions from the bottom up by rough consensus and running code, guided by the principle that any idea from anyone should be able to reach a global audience.” This I agree with and conclude that I disagree with the recent appeal from the FCC.
If anyone should regulate the internet, it should be each individual. Tech makers should make it easy for consumers to customize what they want to see and what they want their kids to see. Consumers also should be able to choose what websites are afforded more speed and quality due to what the user prefers. If the internet is left totally unregulated and uncensored, individuals would have equal access to any information they want, and can continue making their own free decisions. If possible though, companies like Google should be responsible for sorting out the “fake news,” so that internet searchers are guaranteed to know if what they are learning is real truth or not. This way, knowledge transfer will be fair and only censored to the point of ensuring accurate information is presented first, or noted to be accurate.
I believe that online censorship is a bad idea because every country will want something different. If someone wants to move somewhere new, they should not be barred from the information they are always used or would want to discover. If it is our government ruling the internet, than they may be forcing on us propaganda when we do not even realize. Therefore, it is unethical for companies to remove or suppress any publications that would inform the public of what they want to know- which could be anything. Some may not want to see information broadcasted by terrorist organizations, but many may find that no censorship on that information would be very helpful in assessing their personal safety! The government has no right to hide anything from consumers as the amendments do not apply to the government like they do to protect the privacy of the individual. The government and the internet should be transparent, and the users should be responsible for what they see and post on the internet.
Recent Comments