Ignorance is Bliss

What America would be like if we nuke net neutrality

It starts out with the Internet Freedom Preservation Act failing. The likes of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner have seen the fruits of their lobbyists' labor. The Internet now works on a tiered system, where better quality means higher prices for the customer (check out The Daily Show clip below for a more details).



At first, the average Internet consumer doesn't really notice that much of a difference. Sure, you have to pay more for higher speeds. But we've all learned to live with such a system for our cable and phone services, so it's not terribly life altering.

Then one day you go to access a certain Web site, let's say some grassroots nonprofit group. Surprise, surprise- you get a vague message from Time Warner saying the site is not available.

Turns out that nonprofit has some pretty strong views against good 'ol TW, and TW would rather you not see those views for yourself- not on their Internet, at least (because, remember, the Internet isn't the free commodity it was once designed to be. No, no, it's now at the mercy of media conglomerates.)

So you get a little annoyed. Maybe you decide to access the site at a friend's house, where he or she uses AT&T rather than Time Warner. Or maybe you give up trying to see the site. It's not worth the hassle.

Some time goes by. You're learning to live without net neutrality, learning to not explore the Internet anymore. Some sites you just don't have access to anymore, which sucks, but you've come to terms with it.

And then the bomb drops. You go to do your daily Facebook stalking, but this time you get that all-too-familiar message again from Time Warner saying you cannot access the site. You panic. You feel faint. No Facebook? This must be a joke.

There is a simple explanation, really. Facebook creator and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has refused to strike a deal with Time Warner. The social network mastermind has been notorious for his independence- he rejected Viacom's $750 million offer along with Yahoo's nearly $1 billion bid.

So when Zuckerberg takes a pass on a TW's offer to team-up, the Internet provider gets even by banning the popular site from all its users. Not that far-fetched, considering BellSouth allegedly blocked customers' access to Myspace.com in Tennessee and Florida in 2006.

More and more you begin to see this "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" mentality emerge. The Internet becomes highly commercialized, with Time Warner creating their own news content, consumer goods, you name it. Internet providers become a one-stop shop for their customers.

Some more time goes by. All the fervor from net neutrality has died, and people adapt to this new Internet. After all, it is rather convenient-- your Internet provider gives you everything you need and want. You don't have to even think anymore.

It's kind of like 1984 meets Fahrenheit 451, with a nice sugar coating from big media conglomerates, because who really needs all that freedom, right? Tell me what I can and cannot look at and then charge me up the ass for it, please. By this time I won't know the difference. We're now living our own version of The Truman Show, where ignorance is such peaceful, peaceful bliss.

I'll leave you with the video below. It's the most comprehensive, digestable representation of net neutrality I've found, and it really makes you stop and think (ok, so it's a little one-sided considering the group Save the Internet put it out, but whatever. Just watch it).

Will Write for SWAG

Promotional products are this blogger's new best friend

So there are some critics of blogging out there who ask "what's the point?" What satisfaction does the blogger get from posting daily?

Some would argue that blogging is the new "it" emotional release, a modern form of self expression or a free therapy session.

If those aren't good enough answers for you, though, how about this?

Of course there are the conventional ethical dilemmas to accepting free stuff in exchange, presumably, for a favorable write-up. But this isn't a new problem.

As part of our mentorship program for class, I interviewed D Magazine Executive Editor Tim Rogers who offered his opinion on the topic:

"It's impossible to not take a little free shit. I firmly believe that. What am I supposed to do if the Irving Convention and Visitors Bureau wants me to come play the course at Las Colinas at the Four Seasons. Am I supposed to say no? Well, yeah, I'm supposed to. But I don't really think that compromises what I do as a writer."

Amen. This guy would agree with Tim, too.

But back to blogging- what do you do if you receive a new product that you end up HATING? Some of the bloggers from the NYT article said they'd try to be as nice as possible about it or altogether just not write about it.

Don't readers deserve to know what you really think, though?

If it were me, I'd probably choose not to write about a product that I hated, instead reserving my negative comments for products that didn't overtly solicit me.

I know, I know, this is a slippery slope of sound reasoning, and the more I think about it, the more I realize that you probably shouldn't accept free stuff at all if you want to be completely ethical.

But like Tim said, how am I supposed to say no? If someone offers me this or these or definitely this, you better believe I'm going to accept it, and chances are I'll write the best damn review the company has ever seen.

So calling all PR people: I am now accepting "free shit" (as Tim so eloquently calls it). Anything fashion/food/beauty/travel/luxury vehicle-related is more than welcome.