Why Repealing Net Neutrality is Fundamentally Wrong

"The art of writing is the art of discovering what you believe," -Gustave Flaubert

To begin, an analogy: 

follow me on Instagram @olivia.j.the.wordshaker

Self-publishing is to traditional publishing, as the internet is to television/blockbuster movies. Self-publishing has revolutionized the book world the same way that the internet has revolutionized communication and video production: with an emphasis on complete and total freedom and creative control. However, the significance of this analogy goes even deeper, with the introduction of the push to repeal Net Neutrality this December 2017. 

What if, suddenly, these printing and indie-publishing companies claimed that you couldn't publish your material if it contained (x, y, and z), assuming (x, y, and z) are completely legal? What if they said you weren't allowed to distribute your book to certain places? What if they started charging you and your customers unnecessary fees, just for their own monetary gain? 

~

There's a lot of things circulating the internet on Net Neutrality, and how the FCC plans to repeal the Obama-era legislation. But I'm not here to talk specifics. I'm not here to talk about whether it's good or bad for the economy or the internet because truthfully, I can't definitively say one way or another. 

What I can talk about is how fundamentally broken the idea of repealing it is. 

Through my understanding, what this Net Neutrality repeal will do is put the control of the internet back in the hands of internet providers (Comcast, AT&T, etc.). This will allow them to promote content they favour, and block others who don't comply with new standards. This will also allow them to add fees and payments to users who want to access certain sites. 

Of course, much of this is speculation, and truly we don't know how things will turn out, or if things will even change all that much for the little guys. 

But again, I'm here to talk about the big ideas behind this debate. 

The problem is that the internet has already established itself as a free and open platform for anyone, big and small, to share most anything. And by implementing these changes, it directly subverts what the internet is based on: creative expression, and freedom of thought. 

Part of the changes that repealing Net Neutrality will set into motion is the control of access to websites. If the government knowingly allows internet providers to 'censor' content - despite whether it is a moral 'censoring' or not - then the government is indirectly infringing upon our rights to freedom of speech and expression. 

Another point is that the man who set this repeal into motion, Ajit Pai of the Trump administration, claims that this will positively benefit the free market, by putting the control in the hands of the internet providers and not in the government, because, in fact, these internet providers are private companies. 

However, this is backward thinking, because, as previously established, this will make the internet a less fair and neutral place, which is not what it should be. When you have such a massive, global, and universal platform like the internet, it's hard for it to still fit in the box of 'private companies', despite technicalities. These companies will attempt to liken the internet to cable tv, which entirely undermines the purpose of the internet to begin with. 

Assuming the internet will no longer be a free and open platform, the internet will suffer because of the control these internet providers will have to censor media. The internet will likely change, most likely for the worse. Ensuring the freedom of media through the internet is just as important as ensuring the freedom of the press, even if it isn't explicitly outlined in the Bill of Rights.  

Don't get me wrong: this isn't directly a First Amendment issue. The 1st Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...", and technically Congress isn't making any laws. 

However, it is more of an issue of morality: What does this change mean for freedom on the internet? How do we define the internet and it's role? Does this infringe on not the legal, but the moral rights of the people to access what they please on the internet with no hoops to jump through? 

Maybe this is idealistic thinking, but I went into this blog post establishing that we weren't going to be talking facts, but ideas. I'm not entirely sure if any of my arguments are supported or make any sense, but I want to get a dialogue going. Comment your thoughts down below! 

Truthfully, I am morally opposed to the idea of repealing Net Neutrality based on the information I've found. Keeping Net Neutrality is essential for keeping the internet a viable and creative tool for freedom of expression, media, and thought. 

Call your Senators, send letters, sign petitions, check out BattleForTheNet.com, and exercise your First Amendment right to protest and petition the government. 

In case you can't tell, I love and feel very strongly about the First Amendment. If I get a tattoo, it will probably be those 45 words. 

~The WordShaker