As someone who uses social media on the daily (definitely an unhealthy habit, I know) I can't help but notice the amount of political posts, stories, videos, and more that fill my feed. Personally, I do not have any issues with this because I feel it helps me stay well-informed and allows me to see many different perspectives. But I also know that not everyone sees social media in this light and I can't help but think about Trump's major push toward net neutrality in the past few years. Net neutrality is defined as "the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites," (Oxford Dictionary). But this push for net neutrality is not anything surprising if we take a look at the generational gap with technology in general, but especially social media.
Older generations tend to see more of the negatives to social media than do the younger. Since they are at a disadvantage of understanding, to them it only seems logical to deregulate the content that is actually online. Obviously, that does not hold true for everyone but looking a statistics and infographics do reveal a trend among generations and their connections to social media. These so called connections (or disconnections) are what cause for a wide array of information to spread across the masses. So, the solution then becomes to make access to it the same for all.
At first, net neutrality may not seem entirely bad or influential on how the types of information that is being presented. But the idea of harm or hate speech then becomes an even more apparent issue. This call for deregulating users, brands, etc. and eliminating the treat of content being blocked could be seen as a win for free speech if we view it as unlimited access to what we say or post. On the other hand, the incitement of offensive or harmful language is even stronger than before. While we talk about being offended in class and things such as cancel culture, we also have to take into consideration this potential future which presents itself to us. With even more violence being brought on by the media in recent years, is it really appropriate to now let more possibly harmful rhetoric to become available to anyone.
This then ties into our prior conversation on the voice that we place on a pedestal. Many politicians or public figures that actually utilize social media as a resource seem to favor this because no longer would they have to truly regulate their rhetoric to adhere to certain guidelines. Obama even stated his own mostly positive view on net neutrality. So to be fair, it wasn't just Trump, but it seemed to come more to light during his presidency. However, I think that putting these already powerful positions in a place with even less restriction could be dangerous. Many social media platforms have turned down this push, probably more for their own benefit than anything. But this still has played a major role in how people continue to view net neutrality as a whole.
In general, this push for net neutrality is a complicated one that would impact every generation and political party.
If any of you are interested in looking at how the left views different levels of censorship and the impact that has, I highly suggest a look at the following article:
I personally am not much of a social media user as I only have a snapchat to talk to my gaming friends, coworkers, and take funny filtered photos. I feel like most social medias are casual for conflict because people now a days have a difficult time seeing eye to eye of they have the slightest disagreement. Its sad really, to see people with different opnions not being able to have normal conversations or civil debates. As for net neutrality, I just feel like thats not a very great idea if it heightens any type of hateful speech without good and factual support. I'm all for free speech until it really attacks people for no good reason. But like I say with everything I come across, it all is context sensitive. You need to hear two sides to every story before putting your two cents on the matter! Thats just what I thought after reading your initial post. I like a good post that gets my gears turning and really makes me think. Great work here.
ReplyDeleteI always question the word "neutrality" because our ideas of what is "neutral" is a white supremacist construct (for example, literacy standards are considered "neutral" in academic and professional spaces, but their intolerance of AAVE is white supremacist). Similarly, our idea of what is "moderate" tolerates far-right ideology moreso than it does far-left or even moderate-left ideology (Ball State's Dr. Jackson Bartlett did a talk on this that was recorded if anyone wants to check it out: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=1574847456052413&ref=watch_permalink ) This makes me think that Net Neutrality would benefit far-right websites more than it would far-left ones.
ReplyDelete