To be completely honest, I have absolutely no answer to any of these questions. I can perfectly see the argument from both side’s perspectives.
Those for complete internet neutrality have the easy go-to argument of the important role internet access plays in education. With this new generation of well-educated individuals comes the possibility of a child from an under-developed nation growing up and saving their home village. This is a touching tear jerking image, but it comes with pitfalls.
Those against net neutrality seem to view internet access as more of a commodity than a tool. A pretty basic argument against net neutrality is that everyone should have an obligation to pay for what they acquire. Ben Shapiro uses some rather crude analogies …show more content…
Is it our fundamental right to access all of the Internet (not just certain parts) for a reasonable price?
Not necessarily. I feel total access to the entire internet could toe the line of invasion of privacy.
Who should be working out all the issues of net neutrality--do you trust the American government to achieve this in a way that makes sense?
I do not believe that the government is equipped to carry the power of something this important, especially as of late. Current representatives can seem to agree on even the simplest of issues right now, so decision like this would not be possible. This idea is probably nearly impossible, but I feel a decision of this nature could be effectively decided by a completely neutral party who can equally weigh the pros and cons of each side of the argument.
And let's do some problem-solving: How would you make access universal for all Americans?
To answer this question, I turned to some of my fellow classmate’s discussion board for inspiration. The most appealing solution I read was from Nicole Reed. The idea of internet access not being a tool or commodity, but instead a utility is
Those for complete internet neutrality have the easy go-to argument of the important role internet access plays in education. With this new generation of well-educated individuals comes the possibility of a child from an under-developed nation growing up and saving their home village. This is a touching tear jerking image, but it comes with pitfalls.
Those against net neutrality seem to view internet access as more of a commodity than a tool. A pretty basic argument against net neutrality is that everyone should have an obligation to pay for what they acquire. Ben Shapiro uses some rather crude analogies …show more content…
Is it our fundamental right to access all of the Internet (not just certain parts) for a reasonable price?
Not necessarily. I feel total access to the entire internet could toe the line of invasion of privacy.
Who should be working out all the issues of net neutrality--do you trust the American government to achieve this in a way that makes sense?
I do not believe that the government is equipped to carry the power of something this important, especially as of late. Current representatives can seem to agree on even the simplest of issues right now, so decision like this would not be possible. This idea is probably nearly impossible, but I feel a decision of this nature could be effectively decided by a completely neutral party who can equally weigh the pros and cons of each side of the argument.
And let's do some problem-solving: How would you make access universal for all Americans?
To answer this question, I turned to some of my fellow classmate’s discussion board for inspiration. The most appealing solution I read was from Nicole Reed. The idea of internet access not being a tool or commodity, but instead a utility is