Blog Post 10: Antiwar

 American antiwar opinion has long been expressed on a variety of platforms, with websites such as Antiwar.com and The American Conservative directing the effort to encourage a critical analysis of U.S. military engagements. These are vital venues for anyone looking for a different take on US foreign policy; they are frequently critical of the mainstream media's endorsement of military action.

Antiwar.com criticizes US engagement in international conflicts. It draws attention to the human, financial, and political consequences of war, emphasizing how conflicts are frequently fought in the name of safeguarding democracy but ultimately serve the interests of powerful businesses and individuals. The website offers essential insights into how U.S. foreign policy decisions can result in needless murder and destabilization, along with daily updates on worldwide conflicts. Antiwar.com uses in-depth articles to highlight the fact that military interventions frequently result in a legacy of destruction, both domestically and internationally, and rarely lead to long-term solutions.

In similar fashion, The American Conservative takes a conservative, non-interventionist approach to antiwar speech. It highlights the need for U.S. foreign policy to put the interests of the nation first and refrain from drawing the nation into expensive, protracted wars. The website criticizes administrations of both parties for continuing the cycle of interventionism, claiming that these conflicts frequently cause more harm than benefit by destabilizing areas and depleting American resources. The American Conservative challenges the moral and economic arguments for war, appealing to a group of people who respect fiscal discipline, limited government, and constitutional ideals.

The aim of both websites is to question the current militarily interventionist status quo. Though The American Conservative is based in traditional conservatism and Antiwar.com is more libertarian in viewpoint, both sites agree that the United States needs to reevaluate its role as the world's police force. They demand a more circumspect, deliberate foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy, steers clear of pointless confrontations, and eventually upholds peace

Blog Post 9: EOTO 2 Net Neutrality

 What is Net Neutrality?

All information on the internet should be equally accessible. Net neutrality and your internet service provide (ISP) influences what you see and how quickly you see it. When you use the internet you need an ISP to connect you to that specific content. ISPs handle all data equally, regardless of the source, net neutrality assures that everyone has equal access to internet information. Users should be able to browse freely and not be discriminated against from particular websites or content. In the absence of net neutrality, ISPs might be able to charge websites like Netflix and YouTube additional fees in order to guarantee fast loading times, which they might then pass along to customers in the form of higher subscription charges.

Some say that net neutrality may unintentionally restrict industries by requiring this equality across all web traffic. ISP’s cannot intentionally slow down the internet speed for certain services or applications. For example, they shouldn't be allowed to make video streaming services run slower to favor their own video service.Others claim that by taking a "one-size-fits-all" approach, ISPs are unable to provide these data-intensive services with faster lanes, which could enhance performance for both consumers and providers.

ISPs are required by the net neutrality principle to handle all online traffic equally, without giving preference to any particular users, websites, or content. ISPs are prohibited from blocking access to specific websites, limiting connection speeds for specific websites, or charging businesses and consumers for speedier service (prioritization) through the use of so-called "internet fast lanes." Net neutrality encourages a fair and open internet where consumers can freely access content without intervention from ISPs by guaranteeing equal treatment of data.

The internet might split up without net neutrality, with internet service providers (ISPs) controlling access and speed. While smaller sites, startups, or those unable to pay may be locked in "slow lanes," taking much longer to load, popular websites or services that can afford to pay ISPs for "fast lanes" would load quickly. ISPs may even limit users' options by blocking or restricting access to particular websites or applications. An ISP may favor the speed of a streaming service like Netflix when collaborating with it, for instance, and slow down or restrict other services like Hulu. As a result, there would be an unfair playing field where the largest corporations would benefit and users would not have the same freedom to access the internet. It might also discourage innovation because newly launched, smaller websites would not be able to compete on an internet dominated by ISPs and big businesses

The idea of net neutrality and free speech are closely related since an open and varied internet depends on the free and unrestricted flow of information. The principle of net neutrality guarantees that internet service providers (ISPs) do not play the role of gatekeepers, dictating which information customers can access and at what speed. In the absence of net neutrality, internet service providers could control which websites, services, or opinions are available and visible by restricting, blocking, or charging more for access. Due to ISPs' ability to control what thoughts and viewpoints are more widely disseminated or heard, this would have a significant negative influence on free expression.