Hope For the Internet, Hopefully

Following a distressing announcement from the FCC last week that it wants to break the structure of net neutrality comes this piece from Ars, which suggests some reason for hope.

As a ((very) brief) background, net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers must offer equal quality of service to all legal content providers, regardless of their size or commercial affiliation. The absence of net neutrality could lead to (1) blackmail, where an ISP requires additional fees from a web content provider to deliver content at a speed or quality acceptable to consumers, and (2) silo-ing of web content to create a restricted environment which only includes content that serves the business interests of the ISP. (Your world will look like AOL, circa 1996.)

If neither of those possibilities seem scary to you, which they should, consider, at least, that the internet as we know it developed under the principle of net neutrality, and an internet without it will likely develop in a very different way.

Back to the hope.

Ars reports that Netflix is "researching 'large-scale peer-to-peer technology' for streaming." Peer-to-peer (P2P) streaming can currently be used to illegally stream live, copyrighted video online like live sports (if you're into that kind of thing), and for other legitimate uses, I'm sure. The relevant point is that applying the technology to Netfilx's product could mean a diversion of net traffic away from Netflix's servers and toward connections between Netflix users themselves. As the bulk of traffic became smaller-scale transfers between users, the relationship between Netflix and ISPs would become less important -- and less susceptible to blackmail.

That's all fine for Netflix if they end up using the technology in such a way. It would be good for consumers too, if it meant Netflix did not need to pass on any new fees to its customers.

The larger point about P2P transfers, though, is that web technology has the possibility to develop in a way that can attenuate the power of ISPs. This does not diminish the importance of net neutrality, but it suggests that future business models can (potentially) succeed online in new ways. Technology could circumvent any new capabilities of ISPs to discriminate in favor of wealthy and well-connected content providers, and a web based on more P2P connections could retain its democratic spirit and possibilities. Perhaps more importantly, P2P illustrates the possibility of new and yet unimagined technologies to be similarly disruptive.

What's Wrong

I was going to write a long and thorough argument for why media matters generally, but I think an example from this morning’s New York Times will suffice for now.

Headline: “In Poorest States, Political Stigma Is Depressing Participation in Health Law”

Anti-Obamacare stigma is generated in many ways, but one formidable source is the deluge of political advertising that attempts to tar the healthcare law and anyone associated with it. And lest you think the anti-healthcare ads run by Americans for Prosperity are contributing to democratic debate, consider the record for accuracy that they have accumulated. (It’s not good.)

Here’s the heart of the Times story:

“Health professionals, state officials, social workers, insurance agents and others trying to make the law work for uninsured Americans say the partisan divisions and attack ads have depressed participation in some places. They say the law has been stigmatized for many who could benefit from it…”

And in a heartbreaking/maddening example, a social worker described how “people who did enroll paused in their excitement to ask, ‘Wait – this isn't that Obamacare, is it?’”

We cannot know definitively what impact the anti-Obamacare ads have on individual attitudes, but this story illustrates the role of media in our political system and where some big problems lie.

First, corporations and wealthy individuals – with only their economic self-interest in mind – can spend unlimited amounts of money to impact political opinions (including, hideously, an individual’s decision not to pursue healthcare). These ads can be misleading or include blatant falsehoods – and since they’re aired with near-anonymity, accountability is limited.

Second, because such misinformation exists, we must depend on other media messages to counter it, but unfortunately, we can’t always depend on other media messages to do that.

For one thing, paid advertising cannot be countered by paid advertising when resources are unequal. The Times article notes that during the enrollment period in West Virginia, a network of healthcare providers aired ads encouraging signups, but these ads were outnumbered 12 to 1 by anti-healthcare ads from conservative groups.

Journalism should step in here to correct misinformation, which mainstream media institutions will do, to the extent they can while avoiding charges of bias. (For calling lies lies.) Even when that happens, though, journalists must reach a receptive audience.

How do we know this system isn't working? When, from the Times again, “literally, people thought there would be chips embedded in their bodies if they signed up for Obamacare.”