Restricting Facetime

Net neutrality is an important unwritten rule for internet providers to not restrict access to certain sites by allotting a larger amount of bandwidth to certain sites.  This rule helps solidify that the internet is an open forum and providers should not halt access to certain parts of it based on the data plan that a person has.  Unfortunately, mobile internet providers have limited access to certain site by structuring data plans around sites that pay them to have priority access.  The mobile internet providers are waging war on net neutrality and the users will brunt the consequences.

MacKinnon writes about net neutrality as "industry trends point to the likelihood that the mobile  internet everywhere will be much more constrained and manipulated, with limited room for the citizen commons" (MacKinnon 123).  In this article by Reuters, formal complaints are being filled against AT&T about how the are limited users to have a Wi-Fi connection when using Facetime.  Its supporters say that if you pay for access to the internet, then you should be able to use it.  AT&T claims that if users were able to access Facetime over a cellular network, it would slow down the network by a large amount because Facetime is the most data-heavy form of communication that AT&T offers.  While claims by supporters call out AT&T on violating net neutrality, AT&T does not entirely restricting the program.  In a way, allowing access of Facetime over their cellular network would be a violation of Net Neutrality because the data needed for users to use Facetime would slow the entire network down, giving Facetime the priority access of data. 

The complexity of internet access plans will become more complex overtime as internet providers will offer services for the more general internet user who only needs to access a few sites.  The violation of net neutrality is an inevitable as service providers find excuses to limit access based on data use.  

When Drama Goes Too Far

Since the birth of social media, teen drama has shifted in its conflict.  The internet has given its users a curtain to hide behind when instigating drama.  Marwick and Boyd write "Understanding how “drama” operates is necessary to recognize teens’ own defenses against the realities of aggression, gossip, and bullying in networked publics".  The drama that teens are able to create with Facebook has become more brutal since it is not a face to face interactions.  Actions on social media sites are seen without any sort of repercussions because the internet doesn't have any "laws" and subsists.   

Facebook drama has escalated into physical confrontations.  In some cases, it has even led to murder.  In the case of Venita Allen, the drama was caused by a breakup.  She was shot by her ex-boyfriend after drama on Facebook.  The problem that teens of the future will face is the ability to create conflict on the internet.  Access to other people's information has become so easy that creating slanderous content for everyone to see. These conflicts spread so quickly now since people are able to like, comment and share status updates.  This new way of posting makes dividing the sides of drama much easier and brutal.  And with the amount of transparency that Facebook has, it only makes the drama more direct.

The drama that teens can carryout on Facebook will only escalate with the amount of users.  The amount of legislation that needs to exist with Facebook.  The deaths and suicides linked to Facebook will increase and need enforcement.