The Internet Under Attack
December 8, 2017
According to the Washington Post, 74.6% of Americans use the Internet. A computer represents freedom in the Modern Era. Unfortunately, one man wants to limit the freedom a computer gives.
Ajit Pai is the chairman for the Federal Communications Commision, or FCC. With his position of power, he plans to deregulate the Internet, allowing for companies to throttle Internet speeds to what they deem to be undesirable locations.
Companies like Comcast or even Valley Electric could make it so that going on basic sites like Google and Youtube is impossible without a fee. Of course, one could just leave a company if they start to charge ridiculous fees; capitalism does have a form of regulation in itself.
Even with a competitive market, it would be reasonable to see limited access to competitors’ websites. America is a place of freedom, and we are built on having access to information that might not put the “heroes” in the best light.
The government allowing for companies to restrict the First Amendment could be interpreted as unconstitutional. It’s a difficult line that is split between Democratic and Republican.
In a democracy, the people’s will becomes law. A quick Google search shows a massive rejection of this repeal from sites like Reddit, Youtube, and Tumblr. Of course, those in favor make their voices heard, but it is clear; more Americans on the internet advocate for net neutrality.
In a republic, representatives do their best to represent the people who elected them. Unfortunately, about half of Americans didn’t vote for the senators and assemblypersons who represent them. Not to mention that some can be influenced by sources who aren’t the people they represent. Not all representatives are corrupt, but the few that are will vote in a way that ruins the American way.
One person giving their views on a topic about restriction of freedom is hypocritical. From here, the people will speak.
Or, they would, but the overwhelming truth is the lack of knowledge on the topic. Of the varied group of 10 people I talked to, only 2 knew about net neutrality and both had only heard of it in the last month or so.
That’s an unfortunate conclusion, but an apt one. Americans are blissfully ignorant of situation even in their own country. How many times are the public uninformed of an event that could have global repercussions?
The thing about not knowing something is that we don’t know what we don’t know. Of course, the news agencies don’t feed us lies and propaganda; we aren’t in a country like North Korea or Myanmar.
As strained as the title has become, we are still the land of the free. Free does not mean informed, and our constitution doesn’t cover it. Freedom of speech means the government doesn’t stop the spread of information, factual or not, but it doesn’t mean the government has to provide it.
We are Americans, and we are a proud people. The military protects our borders it is our job to protect our spirit. Contact your representative on net neutrality, whether you are for or against, it doesn’t matter how you feel, it matters American republicanism is preserved.
Dean Heller can be contacted at https://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form, and he is primarily against net neutrality. Catherine Cortez Masto can be contacted at https://www.cortezmasto.senate.gov/contact, and she is for net neutrality. The voting takes place on December 14th, so it isn’t too late.
The only way to do that is to express one of the only ways a minor can; talking to your representative. And if they choose to do their job correctly, they will listen. Let your voice be heard.
Owen Brondo • Feb 9, 2018 at 9:19 AM
The internet is a place to feel free and to reach any information you need . The idea of taking money and our freedom to do so is a wrong idea morally and in any other aspects. The internet is freedom not a way to limit us to make more cold hard cash for the big man.
Emily Roberts • Jan 19, 2018 at 1:42 PM
I liked two tidbits of sarcasm you used throughout this article. Your article definite informed the readers, leaving them with many concerns for the “free” internet in which they will want to keep.
Chris • Jan 19, 2018 at 8:26 AM
Your “not for net neutrality, but rather, for preserving democracy” approach was fantastic, and it ensures that even those for net neutrality feel compelled to preserve it. Overall, your article was very ‘Murican and in doing so, you have broadened your audience; your dabble of sarcasm increased the article’s influence and softened the tone enough to ensure the reader doesn’t feel forced to act, although, being informed is half the battle, and your article definitely accomplished this.