Arguments Against Internet Censorship

"Without order, there is a chaos. But to what extent of that order is needed, especially when regarding the internet? In regards to this, people want a safe environment that will protect their rights and make sure that they are treated equally and fair, but they also want to have the guarantee that they will have access to information without censorship and the right to free speech. So while the people want the government to protect them, they also want them to have a laissez-faire approach - a very fine line in between. In such a lawless environment, there needs to be laws but only to the extent that it has not become a tyranny: censoring somethings and promoting others. The U.S government - in all levels, from federal to local - should keep

Some argue that it since the making and approval of net neutrality, evidence proves that “companies have reduced their investment in broadband deployment and innovation” which is detrimental to progression (Ceidotorg). While others argue that now, with those regulations repealed, it favors larger companies and it allows them to manipulate their customers data that can “interfere with the data flow by slowing down or blocking traffic and communicators that they don't like, and speeding up traffic they do like or that pays them extra for the privilege.” And there have been instances before where companies have done such things, like “AT&T's jamming of a rock star's political protest, Comcast's throttling of online file-sharing through BitTorrent, Verizon Wireless's censorship of NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Telus' blocking of striking workers' website” to name a few (What Is Net Neutrality). While net neutrality can limit competition, it allows users on the internet to feel secure in the knowledge that there is no bias or censoring or unfair speed network; everyone is treated the same with no underhand manipulation to limit what a company thinks is not