Final Post: Three Lessons from Technology within the Past Year

          

Over the course of human history, a variety of developments have reshaped how people live. Perhaps the earliest such case came from our ancestors discovering fire, which allowed for warmth, light, and protection. Once people became more civilized, they started to invent their own life-altering processes. These patents such as electricity, telephones, and vehicles make life far easier than it was prior to their existence. In the modern age, nothing quite compares to the impact of what can only be described as a new renaissance- the technological revolution. Within the past 30 years, breakthroughs such as the internet, computer, and cell phone to the point that this trio heavily impacts almost every aspect of our lives. 

But what if these seemingly wonderful aspects of life could be creating an over reliance? These relatively new findings certainly carry plenty of unintended consequences with them. Speaking from my own personal experience, I see a plethora of potential benefits as well as cautions associated with technology. These inventions shape how I live, but I also am slowly beginning to learn how I can keep them in check and not let them rule over my life. I identified three major areas relevant to my life as well as my peers: catalyzed digitalization of learning, understanding the draw of social media, and examining the partisanship of major news networks 

Digitalization of Learning 

First of all, I would just like to state how thankful I am to have been on campus here at HPU for the past two semesters. It truly is not something I take for granted and I am beyond appreciative of everything the university has done to keep us here. Part of the change I noticed with COVID-19 these past two semesters was the amount of online content needed for class. While using Blackboard was heavily utilized my freshman year, I think that this year the amount of digital reliance we have needed far exceeds 2019-2020. 

I've needed to use Chrome and Adobe Products for a variety of assignments over the past week

If that average daily usage appears concerning to you, trust me, it is to me as well. I might not be the only one with prolonged screen time though. The mass move to electronic delivery of school is also affecting young students in grade school. Pre-pandemic data cited from the American Academy of Pediatrics by Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) suggested kids between ages 8-12 averaged 4.5 hours per day as well as kids ages 13-18 averaged 6.5 hours a day. According to medical news provider Healio, this digital approach of schooling could prove to be a catalyst for the arising myopia epidemic. Myopia is just the proper term for nearsightedness, but experts in the medical field are divided as to whether or not prolonged screen time truly causes this condition. A study done by JAMA Ophthalmology of over one-hundred thousand Chinese students found a "significant myopic shift" of approximately three times higher than the trends of the previous five years for children ages 6-8. Although these findings only represent one study, it will be interesting to see if further works replicate this alarming pattern. 

Zooming out of Social Media 

The evolution of the internet has organically produced a variety of platforms for people to connect with each other. Throughout the semester, we have examined several of these communities and their impact on modern society. Yet as these apps continue to update with new features, they appear to be losing their uniqueness and becoming all too similar. A recent WIRED article illustrated this pattern:

Twitter now has Fleets, a rip-off of Instagram Stories, originally copied from Snapchat. Snapchat now has Spotlight, similar to Instagram Reels, brazenly stolen from TikTok. TikTok grew from the ashes of Vine, which was acquired by Twitter, which is now pursuing a concept called Audio Spaces, a carbon copy of Clubhouse.

I first noticed this pattern during my time in quarantine back in October 2020. Since I was confined to my room, I couldn't do much else other than schoolwork so I found myself turning to social media far more than usual. As such, I began to notice these similar aspects of each platform that I didn't notice previously. One of the main details I noticed was the constant bombardment of notifications to my phone throughout the course of a normal day. As these updates have become more personalized, it's harder to ignore these alerts whenever they appear. A TED Talk I watched for my Honors 3600 class examined this phenomenon through the perspective of Tristan Harris, president and co-founder of the Center for Humane Technology. 

Harris shares his experiences at Google and the art of ethical persuasion on social media

Harris explains that the key of these notifications is their ability to present unscheduled time slots in our brain's processing (1:02). With all of these apps fighting for our attention through notifications, much of our day gets arranged by these sudden bursts of information. This learned helplessness to these apps illustrates just how far they have transcended themselves from being simple outlets of entertainment to suddenly the lifeblood of American culture. The solution, per Harris, is to recognize just how persuadable we as human beings are in this persuasion-driven world (6:36). By doing so, this will allow people to regain control over what messages continue to populate the top of their phones. 

Prescribing Partisanship by the News Media

Controversial Hollywood director/producer Joss Whedon was quoted a few years ago as saying, "The news isn't there to tell you what happened. It's there to tell you what it wants you to hear or what it thinks you want to hear.” Regardless of whether or not people enjoy Whedon's movies or political stances, his statement certainly holds legitimacy. If an anchor with a microphone were to approach people on the street and asked them what their primary source of TV news was, it would be fairly reasonable to surmise whether they leaned left (CNN) or right (Fox News). Data from Pew Research Center further confirms this unsettling reality about political participation in the world's once-idolized democracy. There appears to be a correlation between media polarization and distancing of party ideologies.

These echo chambers create even more distance between factions in the two-party system

The unfortunate truth about addressing this problem is that not many people want to understand the opposition. The United States was founded on ideals such as civil discourse as a way for us to enhance our greater collective understanding to build a better society. A surprising voice of reason on this topic came from Charles Barkley during the NCAA Final Four this past March. Although Barkley routinely gets criticized for trying to take stances on issues outside of basketball, his commentary on the current political system strikes a chord. 

Barkley can sometimes be the butt of the joke, but he nails this bit here while on the topic of race

Barkley's observation illustrates the need for average citizens to become more engaged in the political arena by not just voting but taking an active stance on seemingly everything that transpires. The tumultuous events of 2020 really challenged me to address my own personal media bias. What really galvanized me to take action was the responses of the BLM movement to the George Floyd killing. I didn't want to just be someone who engaged in performative activism by posting a square for Blackout Tuesday, I wanted to actually make a proactive effort to understand my African American friends' perspective. By engaging in fruitful dialogues with them, I was able to overcome some of my previous biases and see  racial dynamics in America in a whole new light. Just as with push notifications, if people can recognize our own personal bias as well as that of the media and use it for greater understanding it could lead to a prosperous society for all. 

How Can I Proceed With These New Observations About Technology in My Life?

Source: Alphabyte Soup 

Technology is both a blessing and a curse for us in the 21st-century. Devices like the smartphone and computer allow for us to shrink the world and create a truly global society. However, these modern amenities harken back to a warning from 20th-century author John Steinbeck:

“We now face the danger, which in the past has been the most destructive to the humans: Success, plenty, comfort, and ever-increasing leisure. No dynamic people has ever survived these dangers.” 

We must recognize technology's control over us in our everyday lives and transform our uses of it into ways that are more beneficial and healthy for not just ourselves but the world around us. 

Taking Media Law and Literacy has certainly opened my eyes to the ways in which our constitution and founding principles enable us as citizens to truly shape the world as we want it to be. The truth is though that change is by no means easy or enjoyable. This past year demonstrated that to me like no year I can previously remember. Experiencing online learning, monitoring of social media, and recognition of news spins combined with the skills of this class will set me off to be an active citizen in the democratic process of media. I'm beyond grateful for the blogs, lessons, and memories from this class. Thank you Dr. Smith for making this such a lively course, even if it was for just half a semester! I look forward to seeing you around campus. 

Signing off,

-Josh Noel 

Extra Post- TED Talk Illustrates the Intangibleness of Human Civilization

 

Yuval Noah Harari has written several works detailing human past and predicting human future

Have you ever stopped and wondered about how human society manages to flow so fluidly? What makes us so different from the billions of other species that inhabit this planet? How do billions of people happen to agree upon the exact value of currency or the rules of a sporting event? The answer, according to Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari, comes from human beings' ability to create "fiction" in the meanings of objects and activities that allow them to become organized on a massive scale. 

The human race did not always control the earth though. Based on studies about evolution, we can infer that humans once looked more like chimpanzees than they do actual people. Harari makes this point by pointing out that humans are in fact "embarrassingly similar" to chimpanzees on a biological level (1:10). Yet as humans evolved, the gap between them and the rest of sentient life on this planet widened tremendously due to our ability to create a new sense of meaning. Harari states that this trait is unique to humanity as it exists not on the individual level but rather the collective level where flexible cooperation is required (1:40).

Harari then goes on to explain how some of what we perceive as basic functions of life - religion, states/nations, laws, etc, - exist as "stories" humans have "invented" over time to subjugate the known world. One of the most enlightening examples comes from when Harari breaks down the basic business structure of a corporation. He points out that these companies exist as a "legal fiction" (10:54) and that their purpose is to make money, which happens to be the most commonly shared story in society. When everyone believes in the purpose of money, it actually works from transcending its objective lack of value into the most important facet of the world. Harari suggests that money is "the most successful story ever invented and told by humans, because it is the only story everybody believes" (12:58). While other species toil in their objective realities, humans exist in a dual reality of both objectivity and fiction. And over the course of history, these fictional entities now supersede the objective realities of not just humans but other species as well (13:54). So after you watch this TED Talk, perhaps you will see where in your daily life this concept of "fiction" has uttermost importance in governing how you go about your day. 

Blog #8: Privacy TED talks

                              

The breakneck speed of the digital age continues to present a handful of issues not previously imagined. Each year seems to bring about an advancement which will transform the way people live for Although there is plenty to be excited about in this new age of possibilities, online privacy is as an issue which lingers in the shadows for all internet users. The inherent nature of our devices makes them susceptible to profile-building and information selling. Several TED Talks further discussed these scary issues lurking under the surface of the web

A common theme across these TED Talks presented is the lack of awareness of the internet's lasting impact. As the popular saying goes, "there is no delete button on the internet." Despite this cultural cautionary statement associated with being online, surprisingly few people seem to grasp this reality. Juan Enriquez's comparison to a digital trail being a tattoo makes a tremendous amount of sense. Third-party agents can construct a profile about an individual based off their web activity. When google knows your search history and amazon knows what kind of products you like to browse, it becomes easy to predict an individual's browsing. Another example comes from Darieth Chisholm's discussion on revenge porn. She had no idea she was being exposed by her ex until people informed her and even then it took several painful months to remove the explicit content. Plus, even when the content is "deleted" all someone needs is a screenshot or some other proof of content to show it existed at one point in time. 

                                                                

Another repeated message that emerged from these talks came from the uncertainty behind the purpose of mass surveillance. Much like the lack of awareness of the internet's longevity, people appear to severely underestimate the widespread scale of surveillance technology. Catherine Crump alluded to the fact that police on the local level have recently begun to use NSA-level technology for the purpose of building an overall database. Similarly, Chris Sohhoian mentioned that former PM David Cameron wanted all surveillance findings to be used for government purposes. What is most concerning about these two examples is that the purpose behind these mega-databases is alarmingly unclear. What happens with all the data? Is it really just meant for all knowledge? Why do these government groups need so many data points? Despite these reasonable questions, no one wants to provide an answer. As more grievances pile on big tech, it will be interesting to see what changes are made in the near future. 

Even though much of these TED talks discussed the frightening aspects of invasion of internet privacy, each of them mentioned a way in which people can fight back. Juan Enriquez called upon lessons from ancient mythology about keeping the purpose of the internet in mind, which in his perspective is a surface-level way to interact with others. By keeping the internet at an arms-length, it can't consume someone. To Catherine Crump, people need to take action into their own hands and thwart police and other authorities from using their data without proper cause. If the data is needed to stop criminals, then why should ordinary citizens be spied on regularly? In a surprising statement, Chris Soghoian advocated for the use of technology like iMessage and Whatsapp in order to hold secure conversations. The encryption of these softwares is so complex that Apple admitted to not being able to necessarily decipher what was being sent between users. Lastly, Darieth Chisholm used some reverse psychology to show how even if someone's personal image receives tremendous harm at the hands of the internet that there is light at the end of the tunnel. By finding everyday courage to persist, one can rise above the seemingly overwhelming nature of this technological advancement which connects all of us today. 

Sources:

https://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_your_online_life_permanent_as_a_tattoo

https://www.ted.com/talks/catherine_crump_the_small_and_surprisingly_dangerous_detail_the_police_track_about_you#t-233135

https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_soghoian_how_to_avoid_surveillance_with_the_phone_in_your_pocket

https://www.ted.com/talks/darieth_chisolm_how_revenge_porn_turns_lives_upside_down#t-452251

3. People have more power to stop this than they think 

Blog #7 Diffusion Theory: Protesting the National Anthem in Sports

                         

When San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick first protested the national anthem in a 2016 NFL preseason game, the media did not initially notice. After several more demonstrations involving other teammates, word started to spread about what he was doing. Naturally, the American media demanded some rationale. Kaepernick explained he would not honor the flag of this country, which in his eyes continuously oppressed communities of color without mercy. His words coupled with his actions galvanized responses from both sides of the political aisle and left a lasting impression on the fight that continues against racial inequality. 

The diffusion theory applies to this situation as follows: 

Pioneer: Colin Kaepernick. 

His display of sitting/kneeling for the anthem was the first noticeable display of the modern era of sport. A main opposing argument to Kaepernick's actions came from the kneel being seen as a sign of disrespect to the ideals of America, particularly to the armed forces of the country who hold a tight connection with the NFL. However, this statement could not be further from the truth. When planning these actions, Kaepernick consulted former Green Beret and NFL long snapper Nate Boyer. Boyer later shared a recap of their conversation in an interview with NPR to bring light to Kaepernick's case, "kneeling's never been in our history seen as a disrespectful act...soldiers often take a knee in front of a fallen brother's grave to pay respects." Despite his social justice stance and success in spreading his message, Kaepernick's on-field performance did not inspire teams to take a chance on him in the offseason. More on this later... 

Early adopters: NFL players/some NBA Players

Most NFL athletes received Kaepernick's demonstrations with positive reactions. Several teams decided to forgo the anthem pre-game at some point in the season while others took a knee in solidarity. These demonstrations continued for the 2017 NFL season and seemingly became fueled by the lack of signing of Kaepernick. Of course, the situation escalated with the presidency of Donald Trump. Trump fueled the flame on both sides with divisive rhetoric including, “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he’s fired’." The vulgarity of Trump's comments attracted the attention of superstar NBA athletes including LeBron James and Stephen Curry, the ladder of whom refused the historic honor of visiting the White House following the Golden State Warriors' championship win in hopes that his actions would inspire change. 

Kaepernick received plenty of offers for commercials, including Nike 

Early Majority: The NBA Bubble Restart in 2020 

After over a year of racially-charged football headlines, anthem protesting inexplicably started to disappear. It wasn't until the George Floyd killing that once again athletes began to use their platform for bringing about social justice. This time, the voices of the African American community could not be silenced. In an effort to help bring about awareness, NBA leadership permitted its athletes to wear messages on their jerseys when the season restarted in July. According to the Undefeated, 300 of the 350 athletes participating in the restart chose a social justice message to replace their name. The Dallas Mavericks generated headlines for all of its players choosing "equality" yet having it spelled in the native languages of its players which included English, Spanish, Latvian, German, and Slovenian. Players who opted to go with their own name did not necessarily oppose the league's movement, with the Miami Heat's Jimmy Butler explaining “...with no message, no name, it’s going back to who I was. If I wasn’t who I was today, I’m no different than anybody else of color." Players also took part in pregame anthem protests to call attention to racial injustice issues. 

Late Adapters: The NFL

The country's favorite league started its season after the NBA and attempted to continue the work put in place by the Association. The NFL's campaign of "It Takes All of Us" was placed on all the fields with the addition of some message individuality for the players on their helmet decor. Commissioner Roger Goodell received flack for not taking a stance sooner considering Kaepernick was a part of his league. Going back to 2016, Goodell's comments indicate he himself was unsure of how to respond to Kaepernick's actions, “Well my personal thoughts are… I support our players when they want to see change in society, and we don’t live in a perfect society. We live in an imperfect society. On the other hand, we believe very strongly in patriotism in the NFL. I personally believe very strongly in that.” New Orleans Saints Quarterback made comments in the preseason which at first appeared to oppose the demonstrations. Later though Brees apologized for the naive nature of his comments and pledged to stand for the anthem but to support the movement. In hindsight, it appears as though Goodell and Brees fell into a misunderstanding about Kaepernick's message which has seemingly happened to a mass of Americans. Kaepernick's actions were not meant as a sign of disrespect to the military (hence his conversation with Nate Boyer) but were about calling attention to the treatment of communities of color. Bridging this gap of misunderstanding still has much work to be done. 

Laggards: the MLB 

To use a euphemism, America's pastime has certainly seen better days. The major leagues have struggled on a variety of fronts, and social justice response is certainly one of them. Major League Baseball is uniquely positioned for its fanbase as well. Baseball is beloved by Baby Boomers and Gen X but not nearly as much of a hit with Millennials and Gen Z. It also struggles with a diversity problem. While plenty of international players continue to make Major League rosters, the league is losing African Americans to basketball and football. To put it in perspective, Bleacher Report observed that less than 8% of MLB players identified as African American in 2019 as compared to over 70% in basketball and football. Due to all these factors, the social justice response from MLB has seemed forced or superficial since its players are mostly white. The league's response post on social media to the George Floyd killing among other events came after other leagues (including the NBA, NFL, and even the NHL) and notably did not include any language mentioning the Black Lives Matter movement. Personalities, players, and fans criticized the MLB for its seemingly shallow response. Of course, none of this means that the MLB is against social justice reform. It just goes to count as another strike against "the show" and its failure to capitalize on a modern audience. 

Kaepernick's actions in 2016 continue to be talked about 5 years later. He has not played a snap of professional football since the end of that season and now appears to be pivoting his professional career towards bringing about social justice reform. His actions might have indirectly cost him his career, but making a difference in the fight for racial equality certainly outweighs hoisting a lombardi trophy. 

Sources:

https://www.irishnews.com/magazine/daily/2017/09/25/news/a-timeline-of-the-nfl-protests-from-colin-kaepernick-s-to-now-1145483/

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/09/646115651/the-veteran-and-nfl-player-who-advised-kaepernick-to-take-a-knee

https://theundefeated.com/features/social-justice-messages-each-nba-player-is-wearing-on-his-jersey/

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2894837-once-a-leader-of-social-justice-mlb-is-now-embarrassingly-behind-the-times

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonywitrado/2020/07/20/mlbs-social-justice-efforts-feel-unauthentic-unless-players-lead-the-way/?sh=56c037eb5804

Extra Post- Westworld's Rehoboam

         

HBO's hit series Westworld has captivated a large following over the past several years for its boldness to explore complex philosophical themes in an action-packed manner. I won't spoil much more, because witnessing the series firsthand without any prior context made my viewing experience well worth it. The first 15-20 minutes of the pilot episode were enough to get me hooked. 

*Again, no spoilers* 

The third season features a superintelligent A.I. unit called Rehoboam. Rehoboam was created by Incite, a futuristic tech company which has infiltrated every corner of society and holds massive amounts of data points about all of the world's citizens. The name "Rehoboam" is a reference to the Bible in which king Rehoboam was appointed over Israel yet struggled being faithful to God's will in his leadership over the Israelites. It was only when Rehoboam obeyed God's commands that his people prospered. 

                

The purpose of Rehoboam is to establish control in the world through its "strategies" which makes that happen. Based on all sorts of personal data, Rehoboam predicts the future by analytically putting people on the right path for an optimal world. Some shots in the show cut back to a circle (pictured above) which demonstrates the world's upholding of the strategies. The smaller the circle is, the better the world is doing. Any occurrence which deviates from those strategies is known as a "divergence" and the sphere begins to expand (pictured below). 

         

The system inspires the questioning of an illusion of free will, a popular theme in Westworld. This trailer for season three demonstrates how the events of the previous two seasons as well as fictional worldwide events throw a total wrench into Rehoboam's strategies (again, not going to spoil it. You really should watch it!) 

                          

This next video bills Incite as an optimization company for the world's citizens. It also makes them feel as though THEY are in control with their data and how Incite uses it according to its fictional CEO Liam Dempsey. 

                             

The quotes "The future is powered by you. And we know you" as well as Incite's slogan "If data is destiny, then you chart your path" are both particularly relevant to today's giant tech companies. They sound a lot like "google knows your search history" or "don't be evil." 

              

 This technology also eerily reminded me of the China social credit system which was featured in the Age of A.I. documentary. Similar features of China's system are shared by Rehoboam/Incite, including future prospects, bank loan credits, and ineligibility for certain jobs. However, unlike China the people in Westworld do not know about Rehoboam's strategies/control over their life's path. They believe they are acting on their own free will and that all of life's outcomes simply happen. 

I think a Rehoboam system could frighteningly happen in today's world, since people (particularly Americans) are increasingly pivoting to be against Big Tech/Big Data due to a violation of privacy. We don't know just how many data points are on file at the big tech databases right now which are formulating every advertisement or search suggestion. For all we know, there could be a Rehoboam-type system out there right now...

Hope you watch Westworld! It's available streaming on HBO Max. The first two seasons are even better than season three. 

Sources:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-game-of-life-visualizing-chinas-social-credit-system/ 

https://time.com/collection/davos-2019/5502592/china-social-credit-score/ 

Extra post- EOTO Misinformation Response

                   

After our EOTO presentations on misinformation, I wanted to look more into the history of propaganda. I have a limited understanding based on my high school history courses, so I wanted to expand my knowledge on the subject. 

People tend to associate the word "propaganda" with promotion of world war efforts. However, propaganda itself has long existed outside the United States. The term was actually coined by the Pope Gregory XV Catholic Church for missionary activities in the year 1622. At the time, the word held a positive connotation as means of advancing the church's sphere of influence. Over time though, propaganda did turn negative in its inherent meaning.

The United States' entrance into World War I in particular led to the emergence of propaganda for nationalistic purposes. Citizens were encouraged to buy "war bonds" to help fund the army as a means of showcasing their patriotism. The iconic "I Want YOU for U.S. Army" poster of America's Uncle Sam encouraged young men to leave their domestic occupations and defend the ideals of capitalism. 

                    

In order for this pro-war effort to succeed, it required tremendous organization. The effort was spearheaded by none other than president Woodrow Wilson. For his 1916 re-election campaign, Wilson led with the slogan "He kept us out of war, America First." Wilson ran on the promises of staying out of wars in Europe. Yet shortly after his victory, Wilson reversed course and the U.S. entered "the war to end all wars." Entering this foreign conflict did not ring popular with the people of America, so Wilson devised methods of squashing any opposition. Wilson's congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917 as well as the Sedition Act of 1918, which enforced strict penalties and even prison time for both government employees and private persons respectively on speaking out against the war effort. Wilson also created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) which helped sway public opinion in favor of the war effort. In retrospect, restricting dissenting opinions against the government seems to be indicative of a communist state, the very ideology which the U.S. was fighting against. It also goes against the wording of the first amendment "Congress shall make no law" in regards to abridging freedom of speech. 

         

Modern propaganda can most likely be associated to President Trump's campaign and leadership. Trump ran on the slogan of "Make America Great Again" and similar to Wilson promised governing with a focus on "America First." Although Trump did not pass any legislation to sway public opinion, he used his bully pulpit, particularly Twitter, to further galvanize his base. Some of his posts included slander of President Obama's birth place, media attacks on Muslims, and vehement opposition of racial justice movements such as National Anthem protesting and Black Lives Matter. Trump even used the word "propaganda" when referring to racial sensitivity training which he opposed. Although Trump is now removed from office, his leadership has undoubtedly given rise to alt-right groups such as QAnon who believe a secret cabal cult runs the world and is responsible for Trump's general election loss. Even in the digital age, propaganda penetrates public opinion.

Sources

https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-2-what-is-propaganda-(1944)/the-story-of-propaganda#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9Cpropaganda%E2%80%9D%20apparently%20first,the%20Propagation%20of%20the%20Faith.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-etymology-of-america-first_b_5889767de4b0628ad613de3f

https://www.history.com/news/presidents-relationship-with-press

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-congress-passes-espionage-act

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/donald-trump-facebook-social-media-capitol-attack

Key Post 3: EOTO Misinformation- Net Neutrality

         

The human race's appetite for information and knowledge arrived at its most evolved form with the invention of the internet. This super network transformed the most basic elements of everyday life and brought about a new, exciting chapter in innovation. What makes the internet a crutch of 21st century civilization is the blazing speed of access to this ultimate database. This is known as network neutrality, a long-standing principle that internet service providers (ISPs) must provide all content requested by its consumers at equal speed. Many in America were not aware of this concept until a recent move by the Trump administration and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai who repealed these rules in 2018. In order to understand why the move was received with such vehement opposition, we need to take a deeper dive into the inner workings of mankind's greatest creation. 

The term "net neutrality" first appeared in a 2003 academic essay written by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu entitled, "Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination." In the essay, Wu explained that it would be a future struggle to ensure a free and open internet could exist despite corporate interests, "Communications regulators over the next decade will spend increasing time on conflicts between the private interests of broadband providers and the public’s interest in a competitive innovation environment centered on the Internet."

Net neutrality forces all content into the same lanes (Graphic Courtesy: BBC News)

 

Perhaps the most popular analogy to the concept of net neutrality could be made to cars driving on a highway. The owner of the highway is the Internet Service Provider (ISP) and the cars are the various content providers. Under the concept of net neutrality, big cable companies such as AT&T or Comcast are obligated to have all internet traffic travel to customers at the same speed. Tech giants such as Google, Amazon, or Facebook can't push their content to the front of the line.  

Behold, the Silicon Valley Hyperspeed Lane which can appear without Net Neutrality

Yet when net neutrality disappears, companies have the ability to bid up their content and thus push it across other platforms easier. As a result, this creates an additional big tech fast lane so they can reach consumers quicker than they previously could. Some ISPs favor this model by arguing less government regulation plus a premium charge on reaching consumers will allow for more competition and better infrastructure since the big tech companies take up such a large amount of bandwidth anyways. However, it appears as though the result could be the opposite effect in that Silicon Valley could outgun smaller sources and corner the market on information little by little thus eliminating competition. 

Perhaps the most famous case of rising content costs came in 2014. In those seemingly distant days, Netflix was really starting to hit their stride with streaming and it was becoming clearer every day that they were the future of TV. Of course, Netflix's wild popularity meant it thinly stretched the bandwidth of ISPs. Download speeds tanked and customers began to complain to their providers about the abysmal service. Comcast and other providers insisted they did not slow down content but instead demanded Netflix help improve the infrastructure to improve the customers' experience.  

If you take a close look, you can see right where the deal came into effect in early 2014 

Sure enough, Netflix bent the knee and reached an agreement in which they would pay more to Comcast in order to reach consumers properly but not preferentially. A New York times article on the deal observed that this also came 10 days after Comcast's $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable, putting the Philadelphia-based cable juggernaut in roughly one out of every three homes in America for both TV and internet. The deal raised many eyebrows around the business world, particularly because the settlement amount was not publicized. Tim Wu commented on the deal as well, “This is the water in the basement for the Internet industry... I think it is going to be bad for consumers." 

Later that same year, President Obama took action in order to preserve net neutrality. The legal precedent for doing so came from the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This act clearly defined two types of service: Title I providers were for information service whereas Title II providers were for telecommunications service. Obama began pushing the FCC to apply these rules to ISPs, “You don’t want to start getting a differentiation in how accessible the Internet is to different users. You want to leave it open so the next Google and the next Facebook can succeed.” In February of 2015, the FCC voted in favor of defining ISPs as Title II common carriers for providing internet which required them to treat all content the same. A federal court of appeals upheld the ruling in June of 2016. The internet was safe. Until.... 

The Trump administration went right to work using their platforms as referendums on the Obama administration's actions. Repealing this ruling of net neutrality was among them. Trump's appointee of Ajit Pai to FCC Chairman condemned the Title II regulations as an example of government overreach and argued this ruling would inhibit the infrastructure of internet access to rural areas. Pai pitched this proposal as a way of "restoring internet freedom" as ISPs could potentially expand without burdensome requirements relating to the treatment of internet traffic. On Dec. 14, 2017, the FCC reached a landmark ruling which changed the definition of internet service providers from Title II common carriers to Title I information services, effectively ending net neutrality. The ruling received major pushback on several social media platforms, with consumer groups feeling outraged that the rich and powerful companies were getting bailed out yet again. In response, Ajit Pai posted a video saying what people were still allowed to do on the internet. The original was taken down, but this backup copy of the video received 12,000 likes compared to an astonishing 283,000 dislikes. 

So what's next for net neutrality? The election of Joe Biden has galvanized hope that perhaps the rules could be reversed again to reclassify ISPs under Title II. Biden already appointed former two-term commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel as acting chair of the FCC and still has one more confirmation to make. That confirmation would swing the balance of the FCC in favor of the Democrats and we very well could see the reinstating of net neutrality. Until then, the fate of the internet hangs in the balance... 

Sources: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq-2Yk5OgKc (BBC video) 

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/net-neutrality#:~:text=June%2014%2C%202016%3A%20The%20U.S.,providers%20serving%20as%20paid%20gatekeepers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFhT6H6pRWg&feature=emb_logo

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/heres-paper-popularized-net-neutrality-180949376/

https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/president-biden-the-time-to-restore-net-neutrality-is-now/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html 

https://technical.ly/philly/2014/05/09/graph-shows-netflix-speeds-changed-comcast-deal-comcast-roundup/