Net Neutrality

To start off, net neutrality, is the principle that Internet service providers should treat all Internet communications equally and not discriminate or charge differently based on user, content, website, platform, application, type of equipment, or method of communication. Without net neutrality regulations, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service.

In March 2015 ,the Federal Communications Commission issued its final net neutrality rules, reclassifying the Internet as a public utility. The agency’s historic step is aimed at preventing paid traffic prioritization, data blocking and bandwith throttling, which are among the biggest threats to a free and open Internet, net neutrality supporters say.
The internet provides a lot of service to people around the word and provides fast and easy to get information for us too. But, the downfall of the internet are the “trolls” that give out false information and the people who use the internet to promote hate and violence. Giving these people and others “open” free internet can be very dangerous to the communities. Simply put, a free and open Internet – which goes to the heart of the FCC’s intent – hinges on the ability of the IP networks to deliver and, even more importantly, perhaps, withstand the rising and relentless pressures of data.
According to research house IDC, the data universe is growing by 40% annually, which means it is doubling in size, effectively, every two years. At that rate, the data we create, copy and download annually will reach 44 zettabytes, or 44 trillion gigabytes, by 2020. netneutrality
Without net neutrality the internet can get messy fast. There are billions of people in this world who will and can make the internet chaotic. Net neutrality protects our internet as much as it can. Even with-it things get out of hands on many different aspects. Imagine the internet open and free? This can potentially even make people feel as if it is not safe for them more than they do now. The internet can go extinct before our eyes if the government decides to put it into the hands of IPS workers.

Andrea made some eye-opening points on in The Art of Asking, people should be able to express anything they want and in anyway especially if it benefits them in the long run. Giving the people they want to be free and express how they feel is amazing and a huge step to peace but this also leads me to the thoughts of copy right and how sometimes being free and open about your work and thoughts can be bad in the long run.
I have watched, my older brother takes about two years to figure out his own business and what he wants to do. I also read on people who took years and struggled to write a book that was published. So, I can only imagine the pain and hurt if somebody stole what was written. So, I would say I don’t think favorably on copyright infringement.
And for people who say well it’s a big company etc. etc. no harm done they have all the money. You must step back and realize at some point somebody probably flatbed broke wrote the thing and it may become popular but at the time at some time it was a meaningful piece of work for somebody getting by. And every time you steal you make it harder for the next person to make a dime.
And for the people who think it’s OK because it’s only one copy out of millions you have to remember, of all the things that you see, many more never see the light of day so you think you’re doing no harm but really that then becomes an extra impact against all the people trying to succeed, and without your contribution due to theft, you raise the cost on everybody and that loss of revenue becomes one less person’s dream that may have been realized. But Copyright law is extremely flawed. It’s very easy to abuse, and the public domain is basically useless after extensions of the law.
for example Currently an item goes into public domain after the lifetime of the author, + 75 years.
So if you write a book at 18 and die at 100 years old, you legally own the rights to that book for 157 YEARS.

Online Activism

university-students-fighting-world-hunger-slacktivism-vs-activism-does-a-like-help-those-in-need-15-638Online activism can be affective in many ways but also can not be affective. A huge factor that most look at before seeing if they want to partake to make a change is whats being protested or discussed.  Being apart of an era that takes online activism not as serious as the earlier generations ; It is not affective. Theres a bunch of problems world wide that 9/10 gets brought to light over social media before any other platform. Taking that there are billions of people with online accounts that comment and see these (sometimes graphic) issues. People would say it’s easy to click on links about serious issues and keep scrolling, not really giving it the time of day to look over and spread it to others.:There are  People that are just sharing or changing their profile  pictures online to make themselves feel good, but sometimes these peopke are usually already activists in their own worlds. They are likely participants in the cause or organization and research shows that this sharing on social media doesn’t actually make a change. Continue reading “Online Activism”

Online personas

In my opinion your online persona has a huge effect on the way people view you and also shows your viewers who you are or who you claim to be. The down side on this point is that sometimes what you post, say or do online isn’t really who YOU are. It can just be something you thought others might like to see or laugh at. Sometimes people post or share things for the entertainment to the followers and not themselves. So is online authenticity dead? I personally think authenticity is dead. An online identity can be as permanent as an offline one: pseudonymous users often identify themselves in different social networks using the same account name. But because their handles aren’t based on real names, they can deliberately delineate their identity accordingly, and reassert anonymity if they wish –  and can be very hard to change once set in stone.”Online personas rarely match real-life behavior” is what Mark Milan and this in my personal experience is true.  “I don’t think that you could have any type of accurate or even semi-accurate personality analysis based on what people are writing in their Twitter streams. Probably the same case goes for Facebook statuses as well,” said John Grohol, an online mental health expert and founder of PsychCentral.com
https://phys.org/news/2010-05-online-personas-rarely-real-life-behavior.html#jCp

Another example of how online authenticity is questioned can be seen by looking at Instagram user and Australian model, Essena O’Neill, who was quick to correct the trending term of ‘goals’ by saying that there should be no such thing – especially  online – as everything can be edited and manipulated with a computer screen and the right equipment. She then went to further prove her point by releasing a short series of makeup-free videos explaining how much work goes into planning the “perfect” Instagram post by stating that “Social media, especially how I used it, isn’t real. It’s contrived images and edited clips ranked against each other. It’s a system based on social approval, likes, validation, in views, success in followers. It’s perfectly orchestrated self-absorbed judgment.” 

So with saying this, online personas can be made into a person you wish to be OR it can be someone you USE to be.

 

 

Is It Believable

 

   Picture this, you’r in highschool and rumors are being spread that isn’t true, you’re so angry that false information is being spread about you with out anyone confirming or looking for the ttruth. So, would you do the same to others? would you want someone else to feel what you did? I would think you answred no. It is very important to look into an issue ,subject,person,article etc before retweeting, sharing, or talking about it only because what you hear OR read can be made-up crap that is just for the sources entertainment.

News articles in the 20th century are always full with he said she said or others just heard through the grape vine, stories now adays are never actually from the first persons point of view. For me to think a political news story is true I would have to look through comments, more likely if the post is not from an official website. People who comment on articles on the internet usually give great feed back on the issue or even know more than what is said in the article this leads me to clicking on other links people provide and also do some research myself before I 100% can run with the issue and spread it to others. You can not take what you see online at face value; considering some people troll and spread false news all day and everyday. It’s always great to determine is information is bias or has errors ( here’s a link that will help you sort that out)  how to detect bias 

Over the years I’ve seen tons of false news stories, a question to ask is the media becoming more biased? the answer is YESchartoftheday_12589_is_the_media_becoming_more_biased_n

In my experience I always make sure what I am reading is true, it’s always useful to use sites that help you see bias from facts and they are not hard to find, especially if the topic is important to you .I realize it is hard to know what is true and isn’t with everyone who post being so good at making things seem real