Mapping the world's opinions

argument top image

< Back to question Is net neutrality good or bad? Show more Show less

Net neutrality is the idea that internet providers must not treat websites differently. All websites, irrespective of their content, equipment, or location must be treated with the same priority and speed. For net neutrality’s proponents, it is essential for preserving the internet’s commitment to information sharing and the establishment of a level playing field for all participants, but what are the pros and cons of net neutrality?

Net neutrality is good Show more Show less

Net neutrality prevents internet providers from becoming the gatekeepers of competition, information, and morality in the digital space.
(1 of 2) Next position >

Net neutrality protects service quality for lesser known sites

Without net neutrality, we would be forced to endure sub-par internet service quality when visiting certain sites. If only a few well-established domains load at faster speeds, then only content from those sites is readily available. This lowers the overall quality of information and resources available on the internet.
< (3 of 4) Next argument >

The Argument

The internet gained and maintained popularity for one key reason: It provides people with information and resources in a diverse number of fields. It is supposed to be the one stop-and-shop area to find anything that could perk one’s interest regardless of it being in the area of entertainment, music, personality shows, research, latest economic news, etc. However, if only certain popular websites are given the chance to be placed in “digital fast lanes” by internet providers such as Comcast or Verizon, then other more innovative or game-changing websites will never garner much attention from the public or the press. Service quality can only be protected when there are numerous competitors providing content and expressing their different points of view. For example, if one were to examine just the evolution and growth of social media over the past years, this would become very much evident. All social media spanning from Facebook to Instagram to Snapchat are based on the same goal of connecting people and transforming social interactions. Each one of these sites provides a different type of exchange which is what makes each one so game-changing. Service quality is at its highest when all unique consumers can find a unique place that meets their personal needs. These 3 types of social media platforms enable that. However, if net neutrality is removed, then previous sites would be given uttermost importance. More innovative sites and platforms will be made to load slower and they will never be able to gain as much attention or funding as these well-established domains. Consumers will quickly become tired of this as the quality of service will significantly decline.

Counter arguments

Net neutrality hinders service quality instead of protecting it. Given any topic of interest, there are millions if not billions of websites and domains readily available for access at one's fingertips. For example, if one were to look up net neutrality, they would find 30,300,000 results in the span of .43 seconds. There is an excellent chance that most, if not the majority, of these websites, have flawed or incorrect information. Net neutrality is what is causing that. If websites that are more highly regarded and have a better reputation are made to load faster, then the public can be more accurately informed on matters.

Premises

Rejecting the premises

Proponents


References


    This page was last edited on Saturday, 27 Jun 2020 at 13:27 UTC

    Vote

    Not sure yet? Read more before voting ↑

    Explore related arguments