I have to be honest. I’m really worried about if Net Neutrality gets repealed, I won’t be able to self-learn this stuff anymore. I mean, I feel like I’m close to being employable, but I need more projects in my portfolio, and to makeover my portfolio page. I’m just worried about how much time I have left.
I work a minimum wage job and live at home. I want to move out of my state. I feel like if it get revoked, I may need to make the move sooner and take whatever job(s) I can find, maybe see if I can afford classes in the new state I move to. I just can’t stand living here anymore, and I know if I stay any longer, it might get harder to leave.
I really love web development. I love creating new things. But I’m worried without Net Neutrality, my ability to learn and to share my works will be destroyed. And also, I’m getting older. I really need to get an adult job and secure my future.
Who knows, maybe people are overreacting to what may happen? I really hope so, because I don’t want to lose everything I’ve worked for.
There are a lot of plausible nightmare scenarios waiting for us if Pai et al. fulfill their masters’ wishes, but I don’t think it should impact your learning so much. If ISPs set up certain paid tollways, then a “competing” for-profit entity like Codeacademy or Treehouse could possibly get preferential access. However, I really doubt that either of these companies have the capital required to compete like this, not to mention it wouldn’t endear them to their users. I’m no expert, but I think our learning tools are safe.
This does affect our job prospects, however, and we should be worried. The more power that large companies have to control what you access, the less able smaller startups will be able to compete. Tighter monopolies means fewer new job opportunities. I don’t think this is the death of web development nor does it mean that you shouldn’t pursue programming as a career. If anything, I expect a brain drain as fewer Americans take up programming and the programmers we have move to countries that haven’t handed control of their internet access to private tyrannies. Maybe 5 years from now we’ll have seen an influx of web developers to the EU. Lituania is quite tech savvy. I don’t think the large companies will stop hiring web developers, though, so there will always be jobs in other states regardless of where you live. Competition among developers may increase, but again, I’m not an expert.
But what does this mean for us, right now? It means we need to raise a ruckus. Go here. Do the things. Practice articulating your pro-net neutrality stance by reading counter arguments (yes, there are actually people who argue against net neutrality) so you can discuss the issue with people who don’t know or think about it because they should be involved as well. Definitely make your stance known to your state’s representatives, but try to attend or organize protests. The right-wing confederacy responsible for this mess has very little public support for eliminating net neutrality and have had to rely on bots to give the illusion it does. If enough people organize, I think Pai won’t be able to get away with his shenanigans.
tl;dir: You’ll probably be OK. But, kick, scratch, and bite as though your future depends on it.
Lunduke is doing a lot of equivocating in that video and I would say he’s actually muddled the issue more than clarified. Right off the bat, he’s betraying his title (“Net Neutrality. No Big Deal”) by turning around and saying that the central tenet of net neutrality (no throttling) is a big deal. What he’s saying isn’t so important is the Title II regulation that guarantees net neutrality. His argument as to why isn’t so clear and trying to make this a issue of either net neutrality or DRM is shockingly dishonest. DRM is absolutely a big deal, and I wish more people were aware of that fight. I think that the centralization of user data by companies like Facebook and Google is an even bigger deal. This has no bearing on the FCC’s decision or whether we should care.
It’s hard for me to see how he is acting dishonestly here so I can’t really go that far. After watching the video I took away from it that he think’s it’s a big deal but that people who are upset about net neutrality (which he admitted they have a right to be and so does he) should be exponentially more upset about DRM and if they are not, are they really upset with net neutrality for the reasons that they say they are. I find his argument completely plausible if your concern about free and open internet causes you to be against net neutrality, it only follows that you’d be even more upset about the actual censorship that is currently implemented in browsers. I understand the qualm with the title; however, after watching the video I felt like he really cleared up how he felt about both issues. He even said that if net neutrality isn’t upheld he’d be one of the biggest complainers.
There’s a lot of worse-case scenarios that CAN happen if we lose these protections. Likely we won’t see ISPs intentionally slowing down websites, we’ll see dedicated networks for the websites paying extra. It’s still harmful to an open internet but it’s not going to stop you from learning to code.
This is exactly why I say it’s dishonest. It’s clear that net neutrality is an important issue that we should all care about, but his problem seems to be that DRM isn’t getting the same exposure. That’s not an issue with the fight for net neutrality, so why make this video? Does this help his cause? Why not make a video about net neutrality targeted at the same people who are now riled up about net neutrality to harness their energy? It seems like he just wants to complain about a popular movement. I also fundamentally disagree with the argument that DRM is a more important issue than net neutrality. I can choose to not use sites which implement DRM. I shouldn’t have to, but I can. Traffic shaping by my ISP, however, is not something I can opt out of. Undermining legal protections for net neutrality means that people may not be able to use a VPN, encrypted messaging, or self hosted services without first paying their ISP, if at all. Lunduke plays this down, but we without Title II we don’t have the legal protections he thinks we do.
I think he’s just giving his opinion on the topic in the same way you are right now. I don’t see it as him having a cause that’s really any different from what our cause should be - a free and open internet, which DRM opposes completely. I still don’t see exactly which part is dishonest (in the sense of not factually true). I don’t even see him trying to rile anyone up. I see him trying to have a rational conversation with those who are already riled. I think the reason we view it differently comes down to what you said in your post.
For me, something that is already implemented is a more important issue than something that may be taken away, but either way, I think it’s important that those of us in the tech industry are able to voice concerns and disagree in a meaningful way so hats off to us for that!