Clarissa's Blog

5 responses to “No Net Neutrality?”

1. 

   Z

   November 25, 2017

   I thought it was about ability to promote some sites and suppress others (even more than is done now)?

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Pen

   November 25, 2017

   No net neutrality also means that providers can pick and choose what they want to allow people access to. Connections to any site they choose can slow way down or stop altogether based on purely arbitrary decisions by the ISP’s. So sites you don’t happen to like might be blocked like that, but then sites you do happen like could easily be blocked, as well. It’s also a huge issue for the people who pay for internet service, as prices rocket just for basic things like normally free email and YouTube access — some of us use YouTube for important tutorials for school and other things. Some of us use FB because it’s the only way to get the attention of certain people.

   On top of that, what if you have a paid subscription to an internet service? Something like, say, Netflix, which a lot of people have taken to using instead of cable. If Netflix is put behind another paywall, or blocked altogether, how are people who aren’t in your financial situation going to afford it? I know I — and many other people — sure as hell wouldn’t be able to afford a shitload of paywalls. How do you even cancel a subscription if you can’t get on the website to get the contact information?

   What about people who order medications online? Or bloggers like yourself — who, by the way, use multiple types of domains, including Tumblr, Twitter, FB, and YouTube? What if WordPress is put behind a paywall? What if certain blogs or sites are put behind a paywall or have service to them canceled altogether, just because they may have said something someone doesn’t agree with? We have the ISP’s assurance they won’t abuse their power — but when has that stopped anyone? Animal Farm, anyone?

   No. Net neutrality is an important first amendment issue. You can’t just pick and choose what information you want to show based on what your favorite color is today. The things you think aren’t that great are used by other people in constructive manners. It’s a form of censorship, and it’s an especially dangerous one because it’s less obvious than burning books or trolling.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   DWeird

   November 25, 2017

   It’s not description, it’s agitation, trying to link a general social issue to things most people are likely to be familiar with and care about.

   The issue is about giving corporations the general ability to price internet access based on the kind of sites the user accesses, not the specific ability to make FB&co cost dollars. As much as you mildly dislike social media, betting on corporations taking up the cause of benevolent paternalism probably isn’t a great call.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Vic Crain

   November 25, 2017

   Net neutrality isn’t about social media. It’s about economic discrimination and access to (and control of) information.

   Increasingly, Federal and state governments are providing services online, and making it difficult for citizens to obtain services by mail or in-person. A simple example is signing up for Medicare, which can be done immediately online and can take months otherwise.

   Federal and state governments are providing information online, and with the demise of most newspapers, what sources of information do most consumers have?

   We’re moving in the direction of controlling access to information and potentially controlling content. The Internet is the great leveler, which is why China has taken such extensive measures to control it. Now the US is headed in the same direction.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   1. 

      Tal Hartsfeld

      November 26, 2017

      …and how would this affect those of us who use Blogger/Blogspot, may I ask?

      LikeLike

      Reply