In Network Neutrality Nuances, Barbara van Schewick argues her stance on network neutrality, and how without it we would be under the relentless abuse of our ISPs. By utilizing a multitude of examples and propositions, she manages to engross the reader in a series of possibilities of what could occur without network neutrality, and how it acts as a measure against discrimination Barbara starts off her point of view by firmly introducing us into net neutrality, and how it is basically the wall that stops a digital divide. Focusing on 3 subjects in specific, the piece introduces the reader to why we should worry about network neutrality, the incentives ISPs have to do it and why arguments against net neutrality are invalid. Barbara very convincingly
…show more content…
She makes a few rebuttals that those against net neutrality would make, and then proceeds to argue them. This is a great strategy to arguing a point of view normally, however in this case they are simply not thorough enough and weak. In one of her points she states, “while increasing competition is good for other reasons, it is not a substitute for a robust network neutrality regime.”(Van Schewick) Barbara proves that she is fully aware of the fact that, if censorship occurs consumers will in turn switch towards other ISPs, however she then makes the assumption that switching takes significant time, thus assuming that the average person is lazy and does not want to take initiative and action. However the fact is, that some consumers will take initiative and many activists will push and campaign, similar to what occurred to Nike when the scandal of sweatshops in china broke out, thus change was mandatory for the company to stay alive. Otherwise shareholders, creditors, and consumers will leave for a different company.
Barbara, definitely knows many of the big points within the subject regarding network neutrality, and she manages to convince the average reader by shrouding the lack of quality in her points with per quantity. Her view of the topic is incredibly biased, thus weakening the analysis and conceptual skills in the piece. However, I still believe it is a good piece for
She makes a few rebuttals that those against net neutrality would make, and then proceeds to argue them. This is a great strategy to arguing a point of view normally, however in this case they are simply not thorough enough and weak. In one of her points she states, “while increasing competition is good for other reasons, it is not a substitute for a robust network neutrality regime.”(Van Schewick) Barbara proves that she is fully aware of the fact that, if censorship occurs consumers will in turn switch towards other ISPs, however she then makes the assumption that switching takes significant time, thus assuming that the average person is lazy and does not want to take initiative and action. However the fact is, that some consumers will take initiative and many activists will push and campaign, similar to what occurred to Nike when the scandal of sweatshops in china broke out, thus change was mandatory for the company to stay alive. Otherwise shareholders, creditors, and consumers will leave for a different company.
Barbara, definitely knows many of the big points within the subject regarding network neutrality, and she manages to convince the average reader by shrouding the lack of quality in her points with per quantity. Her view of the topic is incredibly biased, thus weakening the analysis and conceptual skills in the piece. However, I still believe it is a good piece for