Net Neutrality seems to be a stickier issue than it should be. Net Neutrality, as defined by Lawrence Lessig and Robert McChesney in their article, “No Tolls on the Internet,” means, “all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. The owners of the Internet's wires cannot discriminate.” In my opinion, net neutrality seems to be a good thing. As we discussed in class, the internet is a little different from the things that we pay more money for in return for better quality, like insurance policies or even something like a new flat screen HD television. We are a capitalistic nation, so why should the internet be any different? Well, what separates the internet from other things is the necessity and frequency that we use the internet, plus that the internet was founded on the principles that it is equal-access. I’m sure all of us are on the internet at least five times a day or more, doing research, chatting with friends. The internet opens many doors for people who may not have access to those doors without the internet, like education, news, and so much more, and I think everyone deserves quality, high speed internet at a decent price.
The United States is ranked sixteenth in the world for internet capacity, and for a country as powerful and progressive as we are, we should be doing a lot better. Big Corporations control enough in the United States, the internet should be an equal playing ground.
p.s. I found this article in the news that I found rather interesting as it relates to crimes committed in the virtual world affecting your life in the real world.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20081023/AS.Japan.Avatar.Murder/
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
OpenNet Initiative Response
Searching through the OpenNet Initiative website was very informative, and it was interesting to see the different countries rules and regulations pertaining to censoring the internet. What I found the pattern to be for most countries was whatever the biggest issue that country was dealing with at the time, be it religion, politics, social standards, seemed to be the most censored for that country's internet access.
For example, one country I looked up was Venezuela, for the main reason being their current president, Hugo Chavez, has had a controversial reign in Venezuela and it is well known the U.S. government does not approve of him. Venezuela is not subject to extensive content restrictions, but they are to a few. Hugo Chavez promotes a political doctrine of democratic socialism and Latin American Integration, and he famously is a critic of U.S. foreign policy, which of course makes him an unpopular figure in the eyes of the U.S government. So the main internet filtering the Chavez administration wants to do is political, to limit freedom of the press and expression, in order to maintain his own control, and not give Venezuelan citizens any other political idea's other than the ones that already exist.
Another country I looked at was Vietnam, whose internet is regulated extensively. Ironically, the citizens are allowed to question corruption, economic policy, and government deficiencies, but the line is drawn at political criticism, involving political leaders, political parties, and sensitive social and diplomatic issues. Looking at Vietnam's history, they are a country that have constantly fought for their independence, and a country that had to make a lot of changes after the Vietnam war. I think this extends to censoring their internet, they want to keep control, because they have had so much trouble in the past, and are finally having good economic development.
Once again, I have to end my blog with being thankful that I live in a country whose internet is not highly censored, where I can look up any information I want, whether or not it makes the country look bad, and not be persecuted for my actions. Not that internet in the United States is unregulable, because it is, but we still have great amounts of freedom using it.
For example, one country I looked up was Venezuela, for the main reason being their current president, Hugo Chavez, has had a controversial reign in Venezuela and it is well known the U.S. government does not approve of him. Venezuela is not subject to extensive content restrictions, but they are to a few. Hugo Chavez promotes a political doctrine of democratic socialism and Latin American Integration, and he famously is a critic of U.S. foreign policy, which of course makes him an unpopular figure in the eyes of the U.S government. So the main internet filtering the Chavez administration wants to do is political, to limit freedom of the press and expression, in order to maintain his own control, and not give Venezuelan citizens any other political idea's other than the ones that already exist.
Another country I looked at was Vietnam, whose internet is regulated extensively. Ironically, the citizens are allowed to question corruption, economic policy, and government deficiencies, but the line is drawn at political criticism, involving political leaders, political parties, and sensitive social and diplomatic issues. Looking at Vietnam's history, they are a country that have constantly fought for their independence, and a country that had to make a lot of changes after the Vietnam war. I think this extends to censoring their internet, they want to keep control, because they have had so much trouble in the past, and are finally having good economic development.
Once again, I have to end my blog with being thankful that I live in a country whose internet is not highly censored, where I can look up any information I want, whether or not it makes the country look bad, and not be persecuted for my actions. Not that internet in the United States is unregulable, because it is, but we still have great amounts of freedom using it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)