By Allison Coulson
The article I chose to look at was about Ivanka Trump and her experience with postpartum depression. The most shocking aspect of this article was the fact that CNN was the news outlet that published the article! My first response was WHAT!!! In my mind CNN isn’t the one of the entertainment/gossip news sources like “US weekly” or “People”. While postpartum depression is definitely on the more serious side (not really gossip), it seemed like a bizarre platform to be discussed on. The article took a more scientific turn however, discussing treatment options, what causes postpartum depression, and other factors.
The line that immediately stood out to me was when “ Trump told Oz that her decisions “weigh much heavier” now that they are “impacting people’s lives”. This line could be one of the sole reasons that this article was chosen to be published by CNN. I don’t know if I’d call it bad news bias exactly, but the purpose of publishing it could have been to sway the audience into thinking that Ivanka may not be fit to be have a political leadership role. The article takes a political turn towards the end which made me think that the postpartum depression aspect could have been click bait to push a political agenda. Maybe a different audience would click on this article based on the title and therefore presents the political components to a different audience than other articles might have. Tricky, tricky, tricky, CNN, I see what you’re doing.
By Anh Nguyen
So last week we learnt about “net neutrality” through John Oliver and I didn’t understand much about the term but only laughing at his jokes. Anyway, I tried to google it and found out that net neutrality is a principle that internet service providers should give users full permission to access the internet without any block or favoring some sources. I would agree to this term because my life is connected with Internet. I use Internet everyday, almost every time. Everybody around me uses it. The world is bonded with internet but why this term becomes such a serious problem? Is it because of the permission to access, and it’s free? I would prefer it to be free but still , I feel like there will be something else happen because nothing is free in this world.
And of course, Trump is jumping in and hoping that net neutrality will be destroyed as soon as possible. Surprisingly, this related to the topic that we discuss three weeks ago about free press. For those who not understands this term and what is happening to it, this website explains very detail and clearly about it.
By Hannah Austin
Studying net neutrality over the last couple of weeks has had me thinking about what I expect from the internet. I expect to find knowledge, diversity, and ultimately, even if it takes me to the third search page on google, some form of truth. Net neutrality is important to me, personally, because it eliminates the ability for large corporations to buy what the masses will largely accept as “truth.”
I watched a documentary in high school about the formula the Google uses to determine which websites show up first, second, third, etc. in a web search. In the first paragraph I joked about visiting the third page of the google search, but really, who actually does that? Some of the criteria that was discussed by experts on the formula used by Google were things such as site popularity and membership. If cable companies are able to sway the way that sites are being viewed (speed of streaming for example) in exchange for some sort of monetary or even political value then those websites that are getting these benefits will be more popular. In turn, wouldn’t that create an extreme bias on the websites that appeared on the forefront of the Google search? This being said, if many people, such as I, rely on the internet for truth, wouldn’t our view of truth be swayed if companies were able to pay their way into our line of sight? Net neutrality is important, in this case, because websites are able to be judged by the quality of their content and not by speed and other superficial aspects.
In the attached article Google discusses how they determine relevancy. The article says “we look for sites that many users seem to value,” which hints at popularity being a driving force of which websites appear on the forefront. To see for yourself, explore the link I have attached below.
By Amelia Canas
As more and more of our lives turn digital, where we are filing more personal information through our phones, computers, and wherever “the cloud” is, Internet needs to be regulated like a public utiliy. The internet is the go-to media outlet, the first place many are going to get information – information on basically everything. When was the last time you researched a physical book to answer one of those dwindling questions you had? Um, middle school, or never, that’s when.
The internet is this fast medium that meets the demands of free information on whatever topic or idea you could dream of. For the sake of education and knowledge, we need to keep this medium a free playing field. What about the one who can’t even afford a big, corporate internet provider and is stuck with some middle of the road connection? I mean this is all hypothetical, but still. A change effecting net neutrality will cause a ripple in the economy. Amazon has already formed plans that are similar to the idea of regulated internet.
Though there are many ways around the patent, Amazon is in the works of blocking out price comparison when one is shopping in their physical stores. Wait, who knew Amazon has an actual store you could buy from?! Yes it’s true, there’s a dozen or so Amazon Books stores across the country. Besides the fact that Amazon is an ever-growing corporation on the verge of being in a monopolizing state, if it’s not already, the shopper can just turn off their phone’s Wi-Fi and be fine. Though this idea of blocking out information for the sake of a sale is what can grow to something larger.
By Max Falore
I think net neutrality is necessary for the functions the Internet serves us today. Net neutrality refers to the ability Internet providers have that allows them to either speed up or slow down their customers Internet speed. This process makes it so that every topic is treated equally and can be equally accessed by the users interested. I think all platforms on the Internet should be free of charge because that way people in the same fields can have the same opportunities of success. This lets the businesses run on the same playing ground except for their creativity and interactive ease. We are charged for in the WIFI or data we use through our computers and cellphones and these charges already cost us a few hundred dollars every month. I don’t think on top of this companies should charge entry fees into there domains. Younger crowds could be excluded from content and information would become harder to find. I think this topic resurfaces when there is discussion about radio because when these media mediums came about there had to be regulations in order to control what got airtime. The radio was different than the Internet because the radio only has a select few stations where as the Internet is pretty limitless. Every radio station keeps its spot by informing listeners of things that are going on, or by providing information that keeps listeners interested. I feel that the Internet is much more vast therefor more marketing can go towards random information someone might find interesting. There are currently over one billion websites on the internet and that number is always growing.
By Dixie Thompson
Net Neutrality. What a seemingly pointless problem, at least it seemed that way to me. Net neutrality is the agreement that internet service providers and the government make to accept all data as equal regardless of their content, website or beliefs. Net neutrality promotes free speech in the internet in the most basic form. Internet Service Providers, or ISP’s, could slow down or block content that they don’t support or speed up data from companies who endorse them. I found a website that goes into a great amount of detail and how it effects all the different demographics.
What does this mean for different demographics? Small businesses can get run to the ground by big money who will pay to have their content online. They also might put those vendors at the top of a google search with the small guys trailing a few page behind their competitors. Without net neutrality, you would never hear anything from small start ups with potential. Net neutrality allows people of color and other activist groups to get their message out to the public in a moments notice and tell their stories to the public without fear of being shut out.
Net neutrality is in danger of being restricted, reach out to local government officals and make your voice heard if you believe that free speech needs to be enforced everywhere on the internet and in real life.
By Eric Scanlan
The internet has always been seen as a free place. Somewhere you people can go to get information, socialize with friends and family, and a variety of other things. Accessibility has been the main component of the internet, everything has been available to us with no restrictions. Net Neutrality is something that we can thank for that as it has kept large internet providers from putting a monopoly on the internet and restricting our access. Without Net Neutrality services would be slowed and low level income citizens would not have the same access people of a higher social class thus disrupting their equal right to information. Essentially the companies that have the largest profit would control the internet and what we see while browsing online continuing to profit off of us because without Net Neutrality they would be able to charge us whatever amount they deemed fit for a faster more accessible internet. I myself do believe that the internet should be somewhat monitored for the sake of safety and to prevent harmful use of the internet against others. Relating this back to what we have been talking about in class we can use radio as an example. If radio stations charged listeners to listen to their programs they would have a complete monopoly of the airwaves controlling what we are listening to at all times. They could even charge for something that we would not even think of like quality of sound, something that is essential to the listening experience. This article here explains how if Net Neutrality were to be eliminated there would be a complete downfall of our sources of information as it would be limited to what our providers want us to see.