If you have been on the Internet in the last couple of years, you have heard about this thing called Net Neutrality. It actually came up as a significant issue a couple of years ago until the Unites States’ previous leadership, but it’s back and possibly worse than ever.
The interesting thing, non-online media did not cover it, probably because it did not directly affect their business model. In fact, it probably would help them. So websites like Netflix, Google, and Facebook decided to do radical things and go “dark” on a coordinated time and day to show Internet users how important this is.
We didn’t learn from our past and so we are back again. So a central website is trying to coordinate with big businesses as well as individuals on their site BattleForTheNet.com. Some of the websites currently joining in include Amazon, Netflix, Reddit, Dreamhost, Soundcloud, and Twitter. Here is what they promote on their homepage.
“The FCC wants to destroy net neutrality and give big cable companies control over what we see and do online. If they get their way, they’ll allow widespread throttling, blocking, censorship, and extra fees. On July 12th, the Internet will come together to stop them.”
I’m not going to use this website to sway you one way or the other on the issue, but what I would encourage you to do is to be informed. As church tech, we are a product of the digital age, whether you are 14 or 64, and this directly and greatly affects churches. We need to figure out where we stand on this issue and take a stand for our values.
So I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Michael Ervin says
I would say I actually think you are in the wrong for NOT taking a stance on this issue.
Information freedom is extremely important to the church and her people. Not taking a stance is a tacit endorsement that it’s okay for the fed, in a highly political and partisan maneuver, to prioritize paid traffic over standard traffic. This line in the sand rides perilously close to restriction of freedoms that we as a country don’t need to approach.
Jeremy Smith says
I disagree with the first sentence only because too many people take a stand that are ill-informed. If I could ensure everyone was fully informed AND took a stand, it’d be great. But that’s not what is going to happen. Should it be, no, but it is.
Michael Ervin says
My apologies if that came across rude. I just think we all have a responsibility when it comes to this conversation.
It’s frustrating to live where we do and to have representatives who are supposed to serve the public interest so disinterested in the public. In fact, Ajit Pai, the Republican head of the FCC has stated before that he is taking a partisan interest in this particular rollback of both TItle II and Net Neutrality, when he is bound by his appointment to the FCC to act in a nonpartisan manner. Though he is not bound to listen to the public interest, that particular part of the fed is supposed to serve such interests, NOT sit in the pockets of the largest corporate contributors in the protection of their financial well-being.
It seems much more like he is working to support his former employer, Verizon, than he is working to support the expansion of the mission of the FCC:
The FCC’s mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to “make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.” The Act furthermore provides that the FCC was created “for the purpose of the national defense” and “for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications” (Wikipedia).
Jeremy Smith says
Not rude at all. 🙂 The question is, HOW do we educate people. I’d say up to this point, it has been done terribly and I personally believe that church tech has a responsibility to their church and congregation to be the voice in their area. We at ChurchMag have the responsibility to share what we know with church tech.
Thanks for weighing in. Care if I use these comments on our podcast and elsewhere?
Michael Ervin says
No that’s fine. Happy to talk about it any time. I think if it were engaged so that you could let church tech teams include an informative but nonpartisan article in their newsletters it might help. Almost a white paper, if you will. It toes a tricky line, but what else are we here for if not to help the body learn and grow?