T
he internet ruined my
life.
OK, maybe that was a
bit of an overstatement. I’ll issue
an amendment: The internet has
changed my life for better and
for worse.
Let’s start with the bad:
the countless hours spent on
that vapid website known as
Facebook, the constant perusal
of online articles to fulfill my
insatiable appetite for political
news and the way I begin and end
each day by gluing my eyeballs
to my cracked iPhone screen as
I lie in bed scrolling through my
Twitter and Instagram feeds.
Totally healthy, right?
But in all honesty, the internet
has also been beneficial for me.
I would never be able to learn
about obscure celebrities without
the help of Wikipedia. Google
Drive has made writing papers
(and for that matter, writing
The Michigan Daily columns)
much easier. However, I worry
that the internet’s positive effect
on my upbringing will become
upended by recent reports that
the
Federal
Communications
Commission
will
roll
back
Obama-era regulations on net
neutrality, which may portend
dire consequences on how we live
and breathe the internet.
Net neutrality is somewhat
of a nebulous concept, so let me
lay it all out. Net neutrality is
founded on the belief that the
internet is best served when
consumers
are
empowered
in
the
telecommunications
marketplace. Under this premise,
logic follows that the internet
must remain an open forum and
treat all content equally.
If net neutrality goes away,
internet service providers have
the incentive to inaugurate a
hierarchical
system
for
web
traffic — an idea completely
unprecedented in this country.
Those against net neutrality
argue these rules stifle a free
market
and
are
a
federal
regulatory overreach.
While
ISPs
previously
declared they would abide by
the principles of net neutrality
irrespective
of
governmental
policy shifts, Comcast appears
to have backed away from this
promise. The company hinted it
won’t offer “anti-competitive paid
prioritization,” but this statement
raises more questions than it
answers. Comcast asserts it “will
not block, throttle, or discriminate
against lawful content,” despite
opening avenues for some types of
paid prioritization. Let’s break
this down.
Blocking certain content is the
most controversial, but ISPs have
done so in the past. As Tim Wu
notes, “There is a long history of
anticompetitive throttling and
blocking — often concealed —
that the F.C.C. has had to stop
to preserve the health of the
internet economy.” Even as crazy
as this idea sounds, this approach
is still plausible.
Throttling, as the practice is
dubbed, grants ISPs the ability
to discriminate against some
forms of web traffic, meaning
they have the power to limit
consumer bandwidth for certain
sites. Throttling is completely
arbitrary. While Comcast says
throttling is not up for adoption,
other ISPs may throttle sites in
order to get websites to pay more
for faster loading speeds.
ISPs, in this situation, would
target web content providers such
as Amazon and Netflix. The costs
of this pressure may ultimately fall
on those who pay for these services.
Netflix, for example, accounted
for 35.2 percent of web traffic in
March of last year. Because media
like video and music require so
much data, sites like Amazon and
Netflix would likely be the first
to see changes — thus affecting
consumers who already pay higher
prices for slower internet access
compared to the rest of the world.
How else would consumers pay
higher prices? One country that
has already done away with net
neutrality is Portugal. Portuguese
ISPs offer a tiered internet
system requiring consumers to
buy separate packages for social
media, music, video, messaging
and video calls. In turn, content
providers are impelled to cut deals
with ISPs for better bandwidth.
This situation is troubling
for the following reason: ISPs
and
content
providers
often
fall under the same corporate
umbrella. If a company can be
an ISP and content provider that
also chooses to make rules to hurt
other content providers, we have
a real antitrust problem.
Take, for example, HBO GO.
As the merger between AT&T
and Time Warner looms, the
former, a telecommunications
provider, and the latter, a content
provider, HBO would fall under
the aegis of AT&T. Since AT&T
provides internet access through
its U-verse service, AT&T could
essentially put HBO GO on the
fast lane while competitors,
such as Netflix, would load
much more slowly.
Telecommunications
companies are banking on the
idea that the FCC will operate in
their favor. The new regulatory
climate comes at a concerning
time; mergers and acquisitions
are the new normal in the
information economy.
At
our
own
institution,
University of Michigan faculty
are weighing the pros and cons
of the net neutrality argument.
Personally, as a communication
studies major, I worry about these
drastic shifts taking place. Class
projects require me to spend
extensive amounts of time on
YouTube and social media. If net
neutrality goes awash, students
already having to pay thousands
of dollars for tuition would not be
able to reap the same educational
benefits as they would under a
free internet.
The business ethos of ISPs is
reminiscent of one of today’s most
silver-tongued rappers, Cardi B:
“Don’t you come around my way,
you can’t hang around my block /
And I just checked my accounts,
turns out, I’m rich, I’m rich, I’m
rich / I put my hand above my hip,
I bet you dip, he dip, she dip,” she
exclaims in the summer hit “Bodak
Yellow.” Just as Cardi wishes to
command the masses infatuated
with her ostentatious persona,
telecommunication firms similarly
attempt to keep their customers
under the false pretense that their
business acumen will be of benefit
to all. Not so accurate.
As the former FCC chief and
proponent of net neutrality, Tom
Wheeler wrote, “A fair and open
internet is the backbone of the
digital economy.” This could not
ring truer for college students
hoping to get a career in the new
information economy or even
just trying to live a normal life.
We have become so dependent on
computers and cell phones that a
reverse in net neutrality would
alter the way we use internet as
we know it.
E
arlier this month, Syria
announced its intention
to sign the Paris climate
accord, leaving the United States
as the sole country in the world to
jettison the historic deal. Though
the U.S. is currently a signatory to
the agreement, President Donald
Trump has been resolute in his
decision to withdraw from the
deal, which would be implemented
by 2020 at the earliest. The
willingness of war-torn Syria
to join the agreement elicited
laments from climate activists
over the U.S.’s lack of commitment
to combating climate change.
Furthermore,
the
development
contributes to an alarming trend
of the U.S. ceding its role as the
world’s leader.
Since the end of World War II,
the U.S. has assumed a mantle
of global leadership, both in
promoting democracy and solving
international issues. Its reputation
as the world’s predominant leader
has endured for decades, yet is
faltering just 11 months into Donald
Trump’s presidency.
Since Trump took office, global
perceptions of the U.S. have
dimmed. A Pew Research survey
found
the
U.S.’s
favorability
ratings fell sharply from 64 to
49 percent, with only 22 percent
confident in Trump’s ability to
positively influence world affairs.
Trump’s ratings are marginally
worse than Chinese President Xi
Jinping and Russian President
Vladimir
Putin.
Interestingly,
a healthier 58 percent of those
polled had a favorable view of
Americans, indicating that much
of the drop in U.S. favorability is
due to falling confidence in U.S.
policies as opposed to animosity
toward Americans in general.
These
numbers
inherently
aren’t all that meaningful, and
it would be highly misguided to
judge U.S. policy based off foreign
approval — nor should President
Trump’s performance be evaluated
based on his international approval
ratings. Still, the U.S.’s slide in
global perceptions can be traced to
several of Trump’s policy positions,
namely climate and trade. Trump’s
positions on these two issues are
eroding the U.S.’s position as the
world’s foremost leader.
With
regard
to
climate,
Trump’s withdrawal from the
Paris climate agreement sends
a message to the world that
the U.S. cannot be relied on to
limit and mitigate the effects
of global warming. There is
consensus among the scientific
community that humanity is
quickly approaching the point
of no return when it comes to
combating
global
warming.
Without decisive action, the
world will be unable to avoid
the
potentially
catastrophic
consequences
of
climate
change, including sea level
rise, ocean acidification and
extreme weather.
The
Paris
accord
established a framework for
the
comprehensive
global
collaboration required to limit
warming.
The
agreement’s
terms
included
achieving
net-zero
greenhouse
gas
emissions by about 2050 and
the investment of $100 billion
into
helping
develop
world
transition to renewable energy
sources. The deal also set an
ambitious
goal
of
limiting
warming to a maximum of 3.6
degrees Fahrenheit. The U.S.’s
withdrawal seriously weakens
the odds of the agreement
reaching its ambitious goals.
By pulling out of the deal, the
U.S. is exacerbating the problem
rather than contributing to the
mitigation of climate change.
Furthermore, given that the U.S. is
the world’s second largest emitter
of greenhouse gases, its refusal
to contribute to global warming’s
mitigation
comes
across
as
irresponsible and improper.
World leaders sharply criticized
Trump’s decision to withdraw from
the agreement, and it is apparent
that the U.S.’s unwillingness to lead
the world on the issue of climate
change is adversely affecting its
reputation
abroad.
Meanwhile,
China appears more than content
to assume the U.S.’s vacated
leadership capacity on climate,
with Chinese officials viewing the
world forum on climate policy as
an ideal setting through which to
expand their global influence.
The Trump administration’s
isolationist approach to trade
is also diluting the country’s
status as a global leader. Trump
campaigned on a fiercely anti-free
trade platform, and upon taking
office, Trump promptly withdrew
from the Trans Pacific Partnership
negotiations
and
began
the
process of renegotiating the North
American Free Trade Agreement.
The U.S.’s opposition to free
trade under Trump stands in
contrast to most of the world.
With the exception of Brexit,
most European governments are
currently trying to protect and
strengthen the European Union,
while
developing
countries
across the world see free trade
as the path toward economic
prosperity.
Most
economists
agree that free trade agreements
are beneficial to the U.S. economy
(or at least that the gains exceed
the losses), but protectionist
trade policy also threatens the
its economic clout abroad. If
the U.S. follows through with
Trump’s anti-trade policy and
isolates itself from the global
economy, its economic influence
and leadership will be weakened.
The U.S. clearly still values
its ability to project power. Pew
Research polls have found that
while a plurality of Americans
want the U.S. to be less involved
in international affairs, a majority
disagree with the notion that
the U.S. should “mind its own
business internationally.” Trump,
like his predecessors before him,
enjoys the ability to guide world
affairs and relies extensively on
the U.S.’s far-reaching military
deployments
to
execute
American foreign policy.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, December 4, 2017
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
U.S. risks role as world leader
NOAH HARRISON | COLUMN
Carolyn Ayaub
Megan Burns
Samantha Goldstein
Emily Huhman
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Max Lubell
Lucas Maiman
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Ali Safawi
Sarah Salman
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Stephanie Trierweiler
Ashley Zhang
Noah Harrison can be reached at
noahharr@umich.edu.
The need for net neutrality
A journey through white girlhood
FRANNIE MILLER | FRANNIE CAN BE REACHED AT FRMILLER@UMICH.EDU
T
aylor Swift’s latest album,
“Reputation,”
came
out last month and was
immediately met with passionate
reactions. In recent years, Swift
has become one of the most
polarizing figures in American
pop culture, on par with our
current president in terms of
having a notoriety that can start
fights at family gatherings. (If
you’re going to tell Swift that I
compared her to Donald Trump,
please tell the American Civil
Liberties Union first.) Love her
or hate her, she has enough star
power to infiltrate the lives
of even the most culturally
isolated hermit.
As a white woman who grew
up in the rural Midwest, the
musical stylings of Swift had
been ever-present in my girlhood
and my journey to womanhood.
Her thoughts have reflected the
greater opinions of many white
women who view themselves as
victims of a patriarchal culture,
who are all about female solidarity,
but refuse to acknowledge any
type of oppression outside of
what they face. This type of white
feminism cannot imagine that
the experience of women is not
always universal or that feminism
must be intersectional.
So in honor of her latest
creation, I took a journey through
Swift’s discography and, thus,
a journey through my white
womanhood. Let’s begin.
The musical stylings of Swift
from the 2000s era seeped in
preteen
romance
and
casual
internalized misogyny. In spite of
the fact that I was certainly too
young to have a boyfriend and
that there was absolutely no type
of romance going on in my life, I
related to Swift. I identified with
her songs of heartbreak, especially
when she blamed another girl for
said heartbreak.
I identified with the spirit of
“I’m not like other girls!” often
exemplified in Swift’s music, and
my friends and I would often vilify
the girls we deemed “popular”
at our school. (I’m looking at
you, Megan from the popular
crowd, who wears Abercrombie
and Fitch and straightens her
hair every day. I leave my hair
frizzy and read fantasy novels in
the library alone during lunch
because I’m better than you!)
My
personal
brand
of
womanhood was so fragile at
this time that the only way I
could respect another girl was if
she were exactly like me — i.e.,
nerdy, socially awkward and
religiously
conservative.
I’m
not proud of it, and neither was
T-Swift, as we both felt the need
to rebrand ourselves.
We,
Taylor
Swift
and
I,
matured a bit. We embraced
our female friends and became
feminists. Swift released the
immensely popular “Red” in
2012, and then “1989” in 2014,
and I got a slightly more flattering
haircut, learned how to get rid
of my upper-lip hair and started
my freshman year of college
right after “Shake it Off” was
released. Though I didn’t notice it
at the time, Swift and my brand of
feminism lacked inclusivity.
My brand of feminism and
womanhood
morphed
from
judging other women for being
sexually liberated and “allowing
themselves to be used by men”
to judging other women for not
being sexually liberated and
“allowing themselves to be used
by men.” There was no room in
this dialogue for LBGTQ voices,
for Muslim voices, for the voices
of people of color.
Then 2016 happened, Kylie
Jenner’s year of realizing things™.
Swift famously overplayed her
hand at white woman victimhood
by throwing Kanye West under
the bus in order to promote her
own specific and exclusive brand
of white feminism. And after it
became known that 53 percent
of white women had voted for
Donald
Trump,
arguably
all
American white feminists also
overplayed their hand.
It was a time of reckoning for
cis white women who, up until
this point, had probably always
seen themselves as victims of a
patriarchal culture of oppression.
Communities of color had always
criticized the particular brand of
mainstream feminism for putting
their problems on the back burner
in order to focus on the issues
plaguing the more privileged or
for oppressing people of color in
order to achieve their own goals
(Alice Paul, Susan B. Anthony and
other prominent feminists). But
when Kim Kardashian published
the video on Snapchat, these
criticisms had, in my view, finally
reached a realm where white
women could easily see them and
be affected by them.
I have always believed adults
are people who can own up
to
their
mistakes,
apologize
and then change their actions.
For white women, this means
acknowledging our part — and
white feminism’s part — in the
creation of a white supremacist
system, refusing to talk over
voices of color and supporting
those who don’t have the type of
privilege we do. When we were
younger,
we
absolutely
held
problematic
opinions
toward
feminism and race. And this, in
essence, is part of growing up —
realizing the error of your ways
and seeking to correct that error
in adulthood.
So skip to 2017, when I am
currently being disappointed by
“Reputation.” Instead of owning
up to her actions, Swift refuses
to apologize or take any type
of responsibility for her public
downfall. Instead of allowing
her brand of feminism to grow
and become more inclusive, she’s
been slammed by the ACLU for
threatening to sue a blogger who
suggested she was respected in
neo-Nazi circles. If Swift is to
be the collective voice of white
women, she is not giving us a very
good reputation.
Swift’s
brand
of
white
femininity and white feminine
victimhood has, most likely,
followed
us
through
our
childhood, but it’s time for us
to branch off. It’s 2017, Donald
Trump is our president, a known
white nationalist wants to speak
on our campus and other racist
incidents just continue to keep
happening. It’s time we, cis white
women, acknowledge the role we
play in the creation of this racist
system, because only then can we
begin to deconstruct it.
Elena Hubbell can be reached at
elepearl@umich.edu.
LEVI TEITEL | COLUMN
Levi Teitel can be reached at
lateitel@umich.edu.
ELENA HUBBELL | COLUMN
Read more at MichiganDaily.com
Luxury Apartments