Very few innovations in human history have impacted the world to the level that the internet has. Over the course of three decades the online world grew from a new invention to the primary platform of communication, information, and entertainment in the modern world. As the internet has expanded issues regarding how it should be monitored and regulated have become an integral part of both social and political debates, raising questions about what role the internet should play in contemporary society. 

Currently, the dominant conversation about internet access and its service providers (ISPs) revolves around a principle referred to as “net neutrality.” While net neutrality appears as an intricate set of policies on the surface its concept is fairly simple. Net neutrality was first established in 2015 with the Open Internet Order. Since 1996, ISPs had maintained a private ownership of internet access unrestrained by government regulation. It was not until the Open Internet Order that access to the internet was established as a public utility such as water, electricity, or gas. This set of regulations—initially created to administer radio communication—enforces the authority of the Federal Communications Commission over providers of certain media services considered common goods. Whether or not the internet really is a common good is a heavily contested topic of discussion.

Author Phillip M. Napoli explains in his book on media economics and industries that “From an economic standpoint, a public good is described as a product that is not ‘used up’ in consumption” (164). Under this definition, the internet is most certainly a public good as usage of its services has no impact on the remaining services available. Public utility classification ensures that immeasurable resources are equally distributed and accessible for all citizens. Regarding the internet, public utility laws prevent schemes such as throttling, blocking, or paid prioritization which are manipulative ways ISPs get whatever they want from companies using their service. 

The most likely of these tactics—paid prioritization—highlights ISP’s monopolistic power over content providers. Let’s say Verizon, the primary ISP for millions of Americans, offered faster streaming speeds for the highest bidding streaming service. If Amazon is willing to pay the most, then Verizon can make Amazon Video the fastest and easiest-accessible service to all Verizon customers. However, without net neutrality and government regulation, Verizon is not only able to boost a service such as Amazon Video but may also handicap the ease of use of Amazon’s competition such as Netflix. In these situations, the provider has total control. Net neutrality laws prevent ISPs from being gatekeepers that may manipulate which people have access to which content.

However, in 2017, the FCC signed a new set of policies—the Restoring Internet Freedom Order—which repeals net neutrality thus prevents any large-scale regulation over providers. The argument in favor of this reversal is that government administration against free-market practices. The common belief on this side of the debate is that less regulation stimulates competition, innovation, and the economy as a whole. Yet, this argument against net neutrality overlooks and underestimates the internet’s role in modern society. 

Access to the internet has become essential in communication, employment, education, and attaining information in today’s world. Regardless of beliefs about government regulation, allowing ISPs to act freely hinders democracy in the online world—which is only becoming more ingrained into everyday life. Instead of allowing ISPs to act as gatekeepers, the FCC should reinstate the Open Internet Order of 2015 and put the power over the internet back in the hands of its users rather than in those who merely provide its access. 

List of Sources Used

Research Sources

Napoli, Phillip M. “Media Economics and the Study of Media Industries.” 2009, pp. 161–169.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/ideas/christopher-jon-sprigman-net-neutrality-explained.

www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality.

Video Clips Used in Remix

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSAnXWiMyLg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU&t=689s.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkfCsNTQDx4&t=268s.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=84r3qd19tZU.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRJQFTKfXD0&t=109s.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcOOYSiIjfE

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp0lHD8OTJQ&t=158s

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEJKnne6D38&t=143s.

This infographic that I designed portrays information about hate groups in the United States. The Southern Poverty Law Center “defines a hate group as an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” Extreme examples of hate groups include neo-Nazis and the KKK, but they can also be hidden by benevolent-sounding names such as the “alt-right” or the “Proud Boys.” These groups and the destructive crimes they often commit are a direct threat to American democracy as they try and spilt the nation in to classes based on factors like religion, race, gender, or disability. 

I feel that many people living in the United States are not aware of the commonality of these hate-based groups and are also unaware of how rapidly growing the problem is. I was very shocked while doing research for my infographic to find out how prevalent hate crimes and organizations are in this country. Following Donald Trump’s election there has been an increase of hate-based activism— “Unite the Right” being one of many examples. These members of hate-groups and their destructive protests went unseen for a long time, and it was not until the 2016 election that America felt their full force. As Ron Rosenbaum wrote in the LA Review of Books “These are the people Trump has dragged into the mainstream, and as my friend Michael Hirschhorn pointed out, their hatefulness will no longer find the Obama Justice Department standing in their way.” Seeing the statistics on hate crimes/groups was eye-opening, and it was this revelation of hatred within the U.S. that inspired me to design my infographic that hopefully highlights how hate-groups are much more serious of an issue in this country than most people regard them as.

In designing the infographic, I wanted to portray both how far-reaching hate groups are and how quickly this kind of ideology is spreading. I thought the data point about the growth of hate crimes in schools (colleges and K-12) was a great place to start because of how drastic of a statistic it is. This data point came from a report I got from the FBI’s statistics on hate crimes. For the next set of data representation, I chose to portray that 59.6% of hate crimes are motivated by race by taking ten human shapes and separating six of them by color. Not only do I believe that this design is visually enticing and clarifying, but it really emphasizes how racially-based most hatred in the U.S. is. I represented my next two data sets with bar graphs because I found them to be simple while also showing growth over time and differences between states in my cases. I also liked how the bar graphs, particularly the top one, resemble the stripes of the American flag. My theme of red, white, and blue over a black background was very intentional as a way to highlight that these hate-groups are an American problem. By having this color pattern, I was not only able to make specific words/phrases stand out, but there is a USA theme throughout that takes a darker tone when placed over a black background which, for me, represents the underlying darkness of hatred that often goes unseen in America. 

I think that the most powerful infographics do more than just portray information, but also have a call to action—a “mic drop.” I did not want mine to simply end on a statistic but instead show that the problem of hatred has solutions. The recommendations I have for fighting injustice come from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website and they are four ways that any person can be a help to fighting intolerance. My goal is not just that this infographic sheds light on new or unspoken information involving hate groups, but that it inspires people to educate themselves more on the issue and possibly become engaged in the larger discussion. 

Here are the sources I used in making the infographic:

Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report-https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/intelligence_report_166.pdf

FBI’s statistics on hate crimes-https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-hate-crime-statistics-released-111318

An article that further explained the FBI’s stats-https://www.the74million.org/new-fbi-data-school-based-hate-crimes-jumped-25-percent-last-year-for-the-second-year-in-a-row/

SPLC’s page for fighting hatred-https://www.splcenter.org/20170814/ten-ways-fight-hate-community-response-guide

            V-J Day in Times Square by Alfred Eisenstadt depicts the celebration of America’s victory over Japan, thus signifying the end of World War II. In American culture this photo represents victory, excitement, and romance. Many renditions and recreations of this iconic image have been made including a 25-foot statue version entitled The Unconditional Surrender which has stood in Sarasota, San Diego, New York, and many other cities across the U.S. For decades, Eisenstadt’s photo has been an ultimate depiction of love. However, in the era of the #metoo movement, a new light has been shed on this timeless picture. The nurse, Greta Zimmer Friedman, did not know the sailor. In fact, he was drunk and, as seen in the photo, grabbed Greta very forcefully to kiss her. 

            To manipulate this image, I placed the two kissing figures in a new setting of a dark alley. By taking the characters out of Times Square and placing them in front of a backdrop that creates a feeling of danger the viewer gets a real sense of Greta’s helplessness in the photo. I specifically used an empty alley with close walls and no clear exit to heighten Greta’s appearance of being trapped. While the original photograph of the two characters may look romantic surrounded by a celebrating crowd, when moved to a back alley the image becomes much more haunting. I aimed to emphasize how, at its core, this photo is really a depiction of sexual assault. I hope that my manipulation makes the viewer see the original photograph in its true colors while also making them question other places in history where this kind of behavior has been accepted by popular culture.  

Here is the wikipedia article on the original picture where I got the image from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square

Here is where I got the alley photo: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/56787645278165807/

And here is an article about Greta and how she did not know the sailor: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/05/iconic-kissing-sailor-photo-sexual-assault-not-romance_n_1941127.html