06-02-2017, 06:26 PM
(Ah, politics. If only there was an opposition, because damn, do I love myself a good debate.)
Time to share my Personal opinions on this matter.
First, let me start off by stating that I am completely for Net Neutrality. It's enough having the CIA spying on us (kek), we do not need any more invasions of privacy. And while i do not dabble in this subject too often, due to being passive most of the time, I will say that this is an important issue nonetheless. Net Neutrality prevents this wide web being infested with corruption, at least more than it already is... Some examples may include, but are not limited to:
- Making social media sites even more insecure than they already are: Even private conversations and material could be taken or sold at will, given that Net Neutrality is violated and destroyed.
- The beginning of the division of the internet: While it is greatly known that the internet is a place of many different opinions and clashing ideals. It must be noted that under a non-neutral internet, stronger parties will form and control the filtration of information, data, and much more. And those objecting to the information being published will form their own parties, thus forming a divided internet which is nowhere near as free.
- Turning the very concept of the web into a marketing ploy: Even more than it already is, under a non-neutral net certain parties would be able to control network speed and -naturally- information. Certain businesses would be forced to pay up or pack up. And those who do pay the fee will have their business turned into a billboard, advertising the products of those who now force the honest and decent to pay, for those who will throw their paper bills at what they do not need. Blind consumers picking up after greed-blinded producers, what a beautiful sight THAT would be.
- The true politicization of the internet: While closely tied to the second catastrophe I had mentioned, this is an issue of it's own. As human beings we are heavily guided by influence, hell, the whole basis for the world we live in and the governments that guide us is based on influence. Which party do you side with? What do you think is right and wrong? Who do you choose to follow? If Net Neutrality is eradicated, certain viewpoints will be blocked out by those who wish to make theirs heard, those with influence will use it to guide theirs further and, in turn, create a battle front of influence. In other words, as anti-climactic as it may sound, The internet will no longer be neutral. There will be sides, the definitions of what may and may not be true will be skewed, the whole purpose of this information-sharing phenomenon will simply become a propaganda tool... Well, more than it already is anyway.
And those are simply a few of the issues this would create if Neutrality is eradicated. Naturally, I am with it remaining, as i do not suspect that the governments of the world need to spend any more of our tax dollars on yet ANOTHER propaganda tool. But hey, what do I know?
Time to share my Personal opinions on this matter.
First, let me start off by stating that I am completely for Net Neutrality. It's enough having the CIA spying on us (kek), we do not need any more invasions of privacy. And while i do not dabble in this subject too often, due to being passive most of the time, I will say that this is an important issue nonetheless. Net Neutrality prevents this wide web being infested with corruption, at least more than it already is... Some examples may include, but are not limited to:
- Making social media sites even more insecure than they already are: Even private conversations and material could be taken or sold at will, given that Net Neutrality is violated and destroyed.
- The beginning of the division of the internet: While it is greatly known that the internet is a place of many different opinions and clashing ideals. It must be noted that under a non-neutral internet, stronger parties will form and control the filtration of information, data, and much more. And those objecting to the information being published will form their own parties, thus forming a divided internet which is nowhere near as free.
- Turning the very concept of the web into a marketing ploy: Even more than it already is, under a non-neutral net certain parties would be able to control network speed and -naturally- information. Certain businesses would be forced to pay up or pack up. And those who do pay the fee will have their business turned into a billboard, advertising the products of those who now force the honest and decent to pay, for those who will throw their paper bills at what they do not need. Blind consumers picking up after greed-blinded producers, what a beautiful sight THAT would be.
- The true politicization of the internet: While closely tied to the second catastrophe I had mentioned, this is an issue of it's own. As human beings we are heavily guided by influence, hell, the whole basis for the world we live in and the governments that guide us is based on influence. Which party do you side with? What do you think is right and wrong? Who do you choose to follow? If Net Neutrality is eradicated, certain viewpoints will be blocked out by those who wish to make theirs heard, those with influence will use it to guide theirs further and, in turn, create a battle front of influence. In other words, as anti-climactic as it may sound, The internet will no longer be neutral. There will be sides, the definitions of what may and may not be true will be skewed, the whole purpose of this information-sharing phenomenon will simply become a propaganda tool... Well, more than it already is anyway.
And those are simply a few of the issues this would create if Neutrality is eradicated. Naturally, I am with it remaining, as i do not suspect that the governments of the world need to spend any more of our tax dollars on yet ANOTHER propaganda tool. But hey, what do I know?
아니 암캐 깜둥이
아니 절도 깜둥이
아니 절도 깜둥이
