"The internet is an interesting place, filled with fun games, easily found information, and interesting and fun videos, among other things. It has also been the carrier of some controversy over things like net neutrality, cyberbullying, and the idea of blocking specific sites on the World Wide Web. Questions come up during discussions about this topic, like ""Should the United States monitor internet content?,"" ""To what extent can you bend the First Amendment, the freedom of speech?"" and ""Is Net Neutrality good or bad?."" These are the questions I am looking to answer.
To start, I'll answer the first question of ""Should the United States monitor internet content?."" There are many answers to this questions. I believe that it should be monitored, but on a local scale, by elected officials, but not with all the power they want. The people in the United States can and should be able to see
…show more content…
The internet should be regulated and that, at its core, it was supposed to keep the internet a free place. Telecom companies using new technologies are able to manipulate data and direct web traffic. This is a problem. An example of this is when AT&T edited and did not disclose the editing of Pearl Jam’s concert. The lyrics “George Bush, leave this world alone.†and “George Bush, find yourself another home.†were muted when the recording was put on the internet. But if you try to fix larger problems with larger solutions, you only create more problems. Net Neutrality seems to favor the big companies because they can afford lobbyists and legal teams to keep up with the immense bill of Net Neutrality, which is 313 pages. Ironically, one of Net Neutrality’s goals was to decrease costs, but new taxes were created that were passed on to the consumer that ended up raising them. If Net Neutrality continues, then costs could go up and actual access to the internet could go