I would like to talk about two points Freinsen made in the article. The first one is in relation to Network Neutrality. I want to note ahead of time that my opinion may be biased as I am pro Net Neutrality. A couple reasons is because I believe non-profits would have a hard time paying for something I believe should be free and that is the speed at which a web page loads. This option would better serve the wealthy corporations. It is thanks to Network Neutrality that non profit news organizations exist. They help inform the public beyond entertainment news and are run by journalists.
The other point that was made in the article was that they're not in the business of educating. The students are not their customers the advertisers they sell to are their customers. He may be right about this, but I still believe students and educators can learn using social media networks and other outlets provided by the internet. Sure we may be bombarded by ads, but we can still make use of what is being provided to us. Perhaps it would be a good option to pay a fee to opt out of ads. Pandora is one of the organizations that has done this and I think it is a good idea.
In all, I think google, facebook and many others provide us tools and resources to learn, but it's up to us to utiluze them. I do realize they have an obligation as a business to make money. However , it is our right to roam the internet from site to sute at equal speed.
1. What is Google's opinion on Net Neutrality?
2. How can ads be mofied to accomadate say elemenatary school children?
No comments:
Post a Comment