1.20.2022

Today we did a discussion about “War made Easy”, and learned about net neutrality. Through the discussion, we were surprised at how the president could spread such exaggeration through the media just to support the war. Personally, I think this related strongly to the “War is a Racket”. Here Butler presented the close bonds in which the government and companies have through the profit made during wars. War requires mass production of military resources such as artillery, uniforms, and jets. These are commissioned by the government towards private businesses which in turn creates abundant profit. As such, despite war incurring suffering from soldiers, it usually benefits corporations the most. Although the documentary didn’t talk war's ludicrously in its role in capitalism, it surely addressed how governments can deceive the people into validifying war. From there we concluded that war is a complicated process that requires not just a treaty but support from the public in order for it to enact. Moreover, we agreed that the knowledge we cultivated from last semester regarding war dynamics was crucial to understanding the documentary's contexts. Overall, we believed that for the public to be persuaded into war, media is utilized to their advantage to spread shocking and exaggerated news. 

Speaking of media, we also discussed the concept of net neutrality. This is an idea that all data on the internet should be treated equally no matter the company's scale. It was a new concept for me, but it made sense how digital information should be treated as a commodity like other basic needs. This may sound privileged but in the stance of developed countries, digitalization has become essential in everyday life. Also, information plays a big role in public opinion, and if it is dictated through its economic value, the internet may turn into a large propaganda scheme. In order to maintain its unbias, I felt it is necessary to maintain net neutrality. However, upon watching John Oliver's issue, I was concerned about the decision to end neutrality. If we do implement a two-tier system, only financially sustainable corporations would be able to access the high-speed connections, whereas ventures will find it difficult to kickstart their businesses. From past experience with Murdoch and how his fortune controlled and homogenized all his news companies into his favorable bias, I was worried that the same will happen. Imagine the government controlling all telecommunications services. They can explicitly filter out networks that are anti-government by fining an unpayable amount of money. Because the information would not be obliged to be equal, this may be acceptable. I was discomforted at a future where news networks are artificial and evasive of disclosing criticism against the government.

This reminded me of "V for Vendetta", a movie that depicted a future dystopian world where the UK government has turned into a dictatorship. In the film, the National News is seen as casually displaying false information regarding a mishap by the government, and the people are not buying it. If net neutrality disappears, TV networks and online shows revealing hard truths may be canceled. The intriguing part about this movie though was the fact that the public knew that the news was fake, yet they did nothing to stand up. In the end, V, a mysterious figure revolutionized the public to fight back, but in reality, movements do not occur with the presence of a hero. This is why I strongly agree with fighting to maintain net neutrality. This is only an act for telecommunication providers to earn a profit, and both parties (corporations and activists) are thinking so too. As John Oliver says, if we have the audacity to bicker at dancing 3-year-olds or Elsa, we should use our voices in good use. As a heavy internet user myself, I definitely would like to advocate for pro-net neutrality.