When starting to look into the FCC’s attempt to revise the net neutrality laws, it was clear which side was correct. At first, I believed that this revision was absolutely terrible for consumers, and that only large ISPs such as Verizon or Comcast would benefit from these changes. However, the data shows that there is more than two sides to this issue; it is much more complex than previously thought. This first opinion of mine shows how people are able to use Twitter to skew people’s viewpoints on certain issues. Twitter is a very simple platform - this is both a blessing and a curse. Of course, on one hand, it would be annoying to read long tirades from Kevin Durant cursing out his trolls… On the other, the short character limit prevents people from giving much needed context on certain issues, such as …show more content…
Twitter data shows that the minority of people are tweeting about protecting #TitleII of the Communications Act, and the majority are tweeting about protecting #NetNeutrality. The third, and more neutral argument, suggests that the FCC should repeal the strong Title II regulation, but stay in support of Net Neutrality by reverting to Title I instead. A very limited number of people meet in the middle on both extremities, acknowledging that Title II does protect from ISPs being able to throttle and block certain websites; however, they also claim that the strong regulations have negative effects on consumers and competition as well. These problems could be remedied by a revision to the current Title II law. Out of the twenty-four consumer tweets gathered, only two had a similar outlook on the issue to this one. Only one of the six content creators (Mark Cuban), had an opinion similar to this one. Zero tweets by corporations, politicians, or political organizations beared any resemblance to this