Internet Regulation Should Not Be Regulated Essay

In Esther Dyson’s “Cyberspace: If You Don’t Love It, Leave It”, the existence of the internet is seen as potentially dangerous to today’s society. Dyson insists that the internet was once a sanctuary for tech savvy individuals such as gamers and professionals like engineers. The author focuses on the negative websites and communities that are often found offensive to the majority. She thinks the World Wide Web harbors a lot of power. This power can be accessed and conquered easily by most of the population. According to Dyson, responsibility is the key to changing the future (295). Her argument is convincing but slightly unrealistic. The internet seems to be growing into a whole other alternate universe. Society’s rapidly growing technology industry will only be harder to regulate. Most people will do what they want, when they want especially when it comes to the internet.

Many people view the internet as an ultimate resource for anything they desire. The people who say that the internet is a brilliant invention for the best have reasons backing up their idea. For example, Sherry Turkle writes about such ideas explaining how the internet is an excellent tool for the better in her essay, “Can You Hear Me Now?” Turkle believes strongly that the invention of the internet is an innovation for the better and emphasizes to her readers how important it is in everyone’s lives nowadays. On the other hand, some believe exactly the opposite of Turkle’s invalid inquisition that the internet is a tool that is most definitely not for the greater good. The internet is a

Even the governments, who are at the forefront of the battle over online regulations, are not immune to the “virus”.

Most Americans today don’t even know what net neutrality is, let alone how it so greatly affects their life. Whenever you use the internet you are benefiting from net neutrality. Net neutrality is what allows us to visit any website at the maximum speed anytime with no slowdowns or interference by ISPs. This is one of the core ideas that internet was founded on. ISPs (Internet Service Providers) are the companies that are trying to restrict and monopolize the internet. The removal of net neutrality would allow ISPs greater control over what you can do, create and view on the internet. If ISPs have this ability, they could greatly influence people’s quality of life. The right to net neutrality is going to be addressed next year by the

In 2005, Vonage, a phone company that transmits telephone calls over the internet or voice over internet protocol, complains to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about an unknown service provider blocking their telephone service. The FCC investigated the complaint and found that Madison River, a telephone company, was responsible and ordered them to stop blocking data sent from Vonage (Higginbotham, 2010). This incident was one of the first cases of an internet service provider discriminating against data sent over the internet because Vonage and Madison River are competing telephone service companies. Because of this, the FCC proposed a set of principles which sparked the beginning of net neutrality legislation that has been

The Internet’s continuous advancement has produced the need for an on-going debate on whether or not the government should have the power to control the Internet. The idea of the government having control over what each country’s citizens can see on the Internet is also called Internet Censorship. Internet Censorship “is the control or suppression of the publishing of, or access to information on the Internet.” Internet Censorship varies from country to country depending on each country’s current usage and philosophy of how it should be used. (toptenreviews.com) Currently, there are ten countries including

"The government should not be control of the internet. The reason why the government should not be in control of the internet is because the government can restrict you to go on certain websites. If the government is in control of the internet they can tell what is going on certain things. If the government has too much power the government can take control any website and do almost anything to the website they are on. For example, the government can decide to make people pay on certain websites the government wants.

"Growing up, the internet wasn't much of an influence on me as it is now. Homework was done all in paper, every video assignment was done in class, and to call or play with friends, well that was done during recess face to face. Today the internet is the safe haven for millions as a way to find new people, spend free time, complete assignments, or just shop. But thanks to the vote done by the FCC chairman Ajit Pai, everybody will be expected to pay for what were already used to do.

Technology is growing faster than ever before right now. And along the way technology invented items we now take for granted such as the telephone, the television, and the internet. Since the advent of the internet our world has become more connected by allowing users from the comfort of their own home to interact with people anywhere in the world. The internet has become a staple in the everyday life of the American. We use it to learn, reconnect with long lost friends, and so much more. But what happens when big service internet providers push to control what websites you can visit? Groups such as Save the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union, and even the president Barack Obama have advocated for a free and open internet, which is also known as net neutrality. I believe net neutrality is vital to our modern day life in America. This is why I want to propose an amendment to keep the internet free. The amendment shall read: “The internet shall remain free and open and not be subjected to restrictions determined by internet service providers.”

The concept of network neutrality (more commonly referred to as net neutrality) has been a fixture of debates over United States telecommunications policy throughout the first decade of the twenty-first century. Based upon the principle that internet access should not be altered or restricted by the Internet Service Provider (ISP) one chooses to use, it has come to represent the hopes of those who believe that the internet still has the potential to radically transform the way in which we interact with both people and information, in the face of the commercial interests of ISPs, who argue that in order to sustain a competitive marketplace for internet provision, they must be allowed to differentiate their services. Whilst this debate has

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

The emergence of the Internet and the World Wide Web brought upon a medium of communication with a range of opportunities for the world. However, this medium is, in due course, subject to the control of a few major companies. The enigma of information flow is the central concern of net neutrality. Consumers, competition and network owners would benefit directly from the regulation of network neutrality because it would provide a positive impact to those parties as well as provide equality.

Regulation of the Internet is a volatile topic. One reason comes from the very nature of the Internet.  While not entirely different from

These days the internet has become an essential part to living for almost everyone but one of the controversial topics that people bring up is that whether or not the government should regulate information on the internet. Both sides have valid points which form a reasonable argument. Some people would say that they need to because of the dangers lurking around in the cyber world but the reasons for why the government shouldn’t regulate the Internet outnumber the reasons for why they should. The federal government should not regulate or censor information on the internet because doing so violates the first amendment and citizen’s right to privacy, degrades the educational value of the web, prevents the promotion and facilitation of

I am opposed to such content on the Internet and therefore am a firm believer in