Net Neutrality Vote

There's a vote on this today: http://money.cnn.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-explainer/index.html

Thoughts? I'm going to scream if they actually vote for this. 
We should just wipe out Trump, Pence, and everyone else that is for doing this.

I'm confused as to what this is, but if it's not going to help anyone in a good way I don't think it's right.

In short, you would have to pay to use the Internet. Social media, searching things on Google, etc...

It was repealed by the FCC, but it has to go to Congress next so we can only hope they don't end up doing this.

Ok... that is not really fair... paying money for a good cause is good, but for paying for something useless or selfish is not fair, if it were to be by that means. :/

Actually, those are rumors (ex: google searches costing $1.99, twitter being $14.99 a month, etc). Net neutrality has to do with the amount of data that companies use. What I mean by this is that there are internet service providers and then there are content providers. Internet service providers include companies such as AT&T and Verizon, while content providers include companies such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook. The issue here is that some companies (the content ones) use more data than other companies, for one google search takes up a lot less data than a video on YouTube. In 2015, it was ruled that each company would be treated the same and wouldn't be able to be charged different prices for the different amounts of data they provide. This is where the term "neutrality" is coined, because essentially internet service providers must remain neutral regarding the content provided (and not have differing prices). Overall, by eliminating net neutrality, we will be reverting to the pre-existing laws before 2015 when Obama passed net neutrality. However, it is really important to realize that before this law, as well as after it, there is still government regulation on the internet. A lot of people think that eliminating net neutrality means that the government will engage in propaganda or filter our news. This is not anything new, and it actually exists under net neutrality as well. That is a whole separate issue. As a whole, we would not be paying for google searches or twitter subscriptions. Instead, we will most likely pay a few extra dollars in our internet service fee. Therefore, the content providers will not be charging us, it will be the internet service providers. It wouldn't be by very much, however. Although, this will serve to generate more revenue for large corporations as opposed to the general public. As for myself, I'm not really for or against net neutrality, or lack thereof, just yet. This is something I'd like to further research before making a clear-cut yes or no. And by research, I mean digging beneath twitter rants between people who don't really know what they are talking about, and instead just want to engage in *unmeaningful* political debate.

Also, I think it's important to realize that whether you are for this, against this, or unsure about this, we all have the right to our opinions. However, I feel that educating ourselves on any topic before immediately dismissing other's opinions is wise, for as long as someone is reasoned in their beliefs, who are we to tell them they are wrong? Sure we might not agree with them, but that doesn't make them incorrect. What does make someone incorrect, however, is fighting a battle you don't know anything about. ANYWAYSSS moral of the story is go out there and educate yourselves!! I'm super passionate about politics and encouraging political awareness as well as participation. No matter your party or your beliefs, those ideals should be upheld and accepted. But please take the time to be informed, for not being educated can result in one doing more harm than good (ex: you could vote for a bad candidate just bc on twitter your friends liked them---->instead, do your own research and come to your own conclusions). Therefore, as long as you have those beliefs for yourself and because of your own investigation, they will never be incorrect. They may be disputable, but never incorrect, for they are your beliefs. But regurgitating information from others will only serve to hurt you, not help you. :/ Sorry that got so off-track guys LOLOL

Savannah wrote:Actually, those are rumors (ex: google searches costing $1.99, twitter being $14.99 a month, etc). Net neutrality has to do with the amount of data that companies use. What I mean by this is that there are internet service providers and then there are content providers. Internet service providers include companies such as AT&T and Verizon, while content providers include companies such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook. The issue here is that some companies (the content ones) use more data than other companies, for one google search takes up a lot less data than a video on YouTube. In 2015, it was ruled that each company would be treated the same and wouldn't be able to be charged different prices for the different amounts of data they provide. This is where the term "neutrality" is coined, because essentially internet service providers must remain neutral regarding the content provided (and not have differing prices). Overall, by eliminating net neutrality, we will be reverting to the pre-existing laws before 2015 when Obama passed net neutrality. However, it is really important to realize that before this law, as well as after it, there is still government regulation on the internet. A lot of people think that eliminating net neutrality means that the government will engage in propaganda or filter our news. This is not anything new, and it actually exists under net neutrality as well. That is a whole separate issue. As a whole, we would not be paying for google searches or twitter subscriptions. Instead, we will most likely pay a few extra dollars in our internet service fee. Therefore, the content providers will not be charging us, it will be the internet service providers. It wouldn't be by very much, however. Although, this will serve to generate more revenue for large corporations as opposed to the general public. As for myself, I'm not really for or against net neutrality, or lack thereof, just yet. This is something I'd like to further research before making a clear-cut yes or no. And by research, I mean digging beneath twitter rants between people who don't really know what they are talking about, and instead just want to engage in *unmeaningful* political debate.

Also, I think it's important to realize that whether you are for this, against this, or unsure about this, we all have the right to our opinions. However, I feel that educating ourselves on any topic before immediately dismissing other's opinions is wise, for as long as someone is reasoned in their beliefs, who are we to tell them they are wrong? Sure we might not agree with them, but that doesn't make them incorrect. What does make someone incorrect, however, is fighting a battle you don't know anything about. ANYWAYSSS moral of the story is go out there and educate yourselves!! I'm super passionate about politics and encouraging political awareness as well as participation. No matter your party or your beliefs, those ideals should be upheld and accepted. But please take the time to be informed, for not being educated can result in one doing more harm than good (ex: you could vote for a bad candidate just bc on twitter your friends liked them---->instead, do your own research and come to your own conclusions). Therefore, as long as you have those beliefs for yourself and because of your own investigation, they will never be incorrect. They may be disputable, but never incorrect, for they are your beliefs. But regurgitating information from others will only serve to hurt you, not help you. :/ Sorry that got so off-track guys LOLOL

You explained it very well in detail. The first time I heard about net neutrality was on Twitter. And that being said I forgot that Twitter isn't a reputable source where the answers lie nor do biased news help with it. I think that people are becoming less educated as social media like Twitter is evolving around the young generation. I feel concerned about how our generation will be like in the future, and I hope that we don't become uneducated enough to not make wise decisions because that will be dangerous. 

I just hope for the best and not have anything bad to happen.

Beloved wrote:

Savannah wrote:Actually, those are rumors (ex: google searches costing $1.99, twitter being $14.99 a month, etc). Net neutrality has to do with the amount of data that companies use. What I mean by this is that there are internet service providers and then there are content providers. Internet service providers include companies such as AT&T and Verizon, while content providers include companies such as Google, Twitter, and Facebook. The issue here is that some companies (the content ones) use more data than other companies, for one google search takes up a lot less data than a video on YouTube. In 2015, it was ruled that each company would be treated the same and wouldn't be able to be charged different prices for the different amounts of data they provide. This is where the term "neutrality" is coined, because essentially internet service providers must remain neutral regarding the content provided (and not have differing prices). Overall, by eliminating net neutrality, we will be reverting to the pre-existing laws before 2015 when Obama passed net neutrality. However, it is really important to realize that before this law, as well as after it, there is still government regulation on the internet. A lot of people think that eliminating net neutrality means that the government will engage in propaganda or filter our news. This is not anything new, and it actually exists under net neutrality as well. That is a whole separate issue. As a whole, we would not be paying for google searches or twitter subscriptions. Instead, we will most likely pay a few extra dollars in our internet service fee. Therefore, the content providers will not be charging us, it will be the internet service providers. It wouldn't be by very much, however. Although, this will serve to generate more revenue for large corporations as opposed to the general public. As for myself, I'm not really for or against net neutrality, or lack thereof, just yet. This is something I'd like to further research before making a clear-cut yes or no. And by research, I mean digging beneath twitter rants between people who don't really know what they are talking about, and instead just want to engage in *unmeaningful* political debate.

Also, I think it's important to realize that whether you are for this, against this, or unsure about this, we all have the right to our opinions. However, I feel that educating ourselves on any topic before immediately dismissing other's opinions is wise, for as long as someone is reasoned in their beliefs, who are we to tell them they are wrong? Sure we might not agree with them, but that doesn't make them incorrect. What does make someone incorrect, however, is fighting a battle you don't know anything about. ANYWAYSSS moral of the story is go out there and educate yourselves!! I'm super passionate about politics and encouraging political awareness as well as participation. No matter your party or your beliefs, those ideals should be upheld and accepted. But please take the time to be informed, for not being educated can result in one doing more harm than good (ex: you could vote for a bad candidate just bc on twitter your friends liked them---->instead, do your own research and come to your own conclusions). Therefore, as long as you have those beliefs for yourself and because of your own investigation, they will never be incorrect. They may be disputable, but never incorrect, for they are your beliefs. But regurgitating information from others will only serve to hurt you, not help you. :/ Sorry that got so off-track guys LOLOL

You explained it very well in detail. The first time I heard about net neutrality was on Twitter. And that being said I forgot that Twitter isn't a reputable source where the answers lie nor do biased news help with it. I think that people are becoming less educated as social media like Twitter is evolving around the young generation. I feel concerned about how our generation will be like in the future, and I hope that we don't become uneducated enough to not make wise decisions because that will be dangerous. 

I just hope for the best and not have anything bad to happen.

Aw, thank you!! I felt like I wrote that so awful LOL so thank you for saying that!! And yesssss ugh exactly. I love twitter but it's filled with so many inaccuracies bc it's filled w young people who want to engage in fights more than they actually care about what they're discussing. It's quite unfortunate /: I hope too that people want to become more educated and look to other avenues other than twitter ////: