Well first off, net neutrality is that the Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites. So why is this important for teens? Net neutrality is actually very important. Net neutrality is fairly important topic and people around the world are now wanting to learn more about it. Teens are our future’s next generation and technology is becoming huge part of their lives. Teens today need to know about the internet and how to be safe on it. Teens should know about net neutrality so they can be safe and show other hw to be safe as well.
Net neutrality is here so it can keep all internet equal. This is important for teens to know so they can figure out what side they are on. You can be on Net Neutrality or the FCC. The FCC is the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC is trying to get you to pay more for “faster” internet. But it honestly is not faster. The only thing it does is mess up your internet, It makes the stuff you are trying you do take longer to load and buffer. Net neutrality is trying to stop the FCC, even President Obama is on net neutrality side.
This is an important issue for teens because they are the ones mostly being targeted. They are the ones who are almost always on the internet, it’s their second nature. They need to know what they are doing, how they are doing it, and how is it possible. The FCC is trying to make you pay more for slower internet while net neutrality wants to make it all fair. This is an important topic and all teens should know about it.
Net Neutrality is the internet service providers allowing to access all content on the internet without it getting blocked. It is a very popular topic going around our world today, whether or not we as people should be allowed to see everything we search on the internet. Most of the people today make up as young adults and teenagers that use the internet everyday, because it is second nature. Teens should be aware of Net Neutrality and how the internet works, so they know how to use it wisely in the future and pass that knowledge down to the future generations.
They are many pros and cons to Net neutrality. Yes they are many cons to Net Neutrality and how they can limit what we see, but it can also be a good way to keep the internet safe and pure. Net Neutrality, can limit your access at looking at websites. Meaning some websites you might be able to look at and others you may not. At times that could be good because it could be blocking spam websites or inappropriate content, but then again, what you do on the internet is a private decision. Which brings me to my cons, Net Neutrality wants to be able to look at the content that you search up, and then manipulate things on that website before you can even look at it. Not only is this a violation of our privacy, but who are they to tell what we can and cannot see?
Right now, the internet is being managed by the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) , which is trying to protect our rights from Net Neutrality. We as teens, need to be aware that what we are doing on the internet could become no longer private, and I think that is very important to know. Knowing thing about how our internet works now is vital to our future because this could be the future of how our internet will work and that could affect our lives in the future, especially when we depend on the internet so much.
What is Net Neutrality?
I got this straight from the online dictionary to give you the simplest explanation: Net Neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
What is Happening to Net Neutrality?
There is an article that was made by John Naughton that clearly explains what the situation is, an although it is currently in the United States, it is very probably for such a thing to spread to other nations.
The principle that all bits traversing the network should be treated equally was a key feature of the internet's original design. It was also one of the reasons why the internet became such an enabler of disruptive innovation. Net neutrality meant that the bits generated by a smart but unknown programmer's application, for instance the web, file-sharing, Skype and Facebook, would be treated the same as bitstreams emanating from a giant corporation. Neutrality kept the barrier to entry low.
So far, so good. But the problem with general principles, however admirable, is that they sometimes create inflexibility. In that sense, net neutrality is like the principle that one should never, ever, tell a lie, not even a small one: excellent in principle, unfeasible in practice. The internet works by breaking each communication into small data packets and dispatching them, often by different routes, to their destination, where they are reassembled into the original communication. This was fine in the early days, when most communications were files and emails, and it didn't matter if the packets failed to arrive in an orderly stream. But once innovations such as internet telephony, streaming audio and video emerged, it looked like a good idea to give them privileged treatment because otherwise quality was degraded.
When media corporations such as Netflix came along, they were outraged that their bits had to travel in the same third-class carriages as everybody else's. Which, of course, led big ISPs to the idea that they could put those bitstreams into a fast lane and charge their owners accordingly, thereby earning more revenue and throwing neutrality out of the window.
In the US, the neutrality buck stops with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), historically a doughty supporter of the principle. Since last January, however, the FCC has been impaled on the horns of an appeal court decision. Verizon, the huge US ISP, successfully challenged the FCC's rules on neutrality. The court ruled that the commission did not have the right to prevent Verizon from charging a fee for traffic carried on its network and since that point Verizon has been billing Netflix for providing a fast lane for its content to Verizon subscribers.
Mulling its options in April, the FCC concluded that, to stay within the law, it would have to allow ISPs to charge for providing fast lanes so long as the terms were "commercially reasonable". Anticipating the outrage that this violation of the neutrality principle would generate, the commission put the draft ruling out for a period of public consultation that closed on 15 July.
You can imagine what happened. The commission was deluged by public comments, most of them online. It had to add extra capacity to cope with the fallout from Oliver's broadcast. By deadline day, it had received nearly a million submissions, the vast majority of which were probably hostile to the proposed new ruling.
Also received were a much smaller number of submissions from corporations. Verizon, for example, filed a 184-page comment written by five lawyers. Comcast, another huge ISP, submitted a 71-page document. Other companies (internet giants and telecoms mainly) did much the same.
Guess which submissions the FCC will take seriously?
You know the answer. All the public submissions will be read and most of them rejected. This not because FCC officials are biased or corrupt. It's just that they can't do anything with expressions of outrage or affirmations of values. They're charged by Congress with making rules that can stand up to legal challenge. They need submissions that have evidence and arguments, things that most laypeople are not in a position to provide. Sad but true: even in a democracy, rulemaking can't be done by plebiscite, online or off. And that noise you're hearing is the ghost of Edmund Burke cheering.
It is stupid for companies to do this to us, honestly the fact that there are people going against net neutrality is insanely stupid and I can't even imagine how idiotic some people can be. The internet is a place with billions of gigabytes of information, a cloud with vast numbers of intelligence and information. It is an archive of events both positive and negative and it is a useful element to the evolution of the human race.
When my father was working as one of the leading members in the team that brought the internet to Italy, many of the people that worked by his side did not imagine a web that is imprisoned by the plagued ISP's (my dad's name is Andrea Mazzucchi, in case you wanted to look him up). Their vision of what the power of the internet could do was young and positive. People like them, people who are the reason why companies like Comcast and Verizon exist, the reason why they have the power they have today, and I don't care how many lawyers they have in their stupid contracts, they are WRONG.
If the internet was not working to it's fullest capacity, then there would be hundreds of thousands of people who would not be able to access it due to the price increments and the overall difficulty of using it. If this was the case then many protests like the ones in North Africa, where twitter and social networks like those were used, people used them as a method to organize a protest against an unfair law or unfair government choice or policy. Think about school! The protest me and my fellow classmates did to help support our teachers was organized using the web! If people would of had trouble accessing the internet, then how could the protest be as efficient as how it was before?
I have a dream, a dream where boys and girls, women and children, men and seniors, can live in peace and serenity under the ways of Net Neutrality. I have a dream where history's events do not reenact themselves, where unfairness and stealing from the money we pay to speak out to the world, the very words that change who we are as a species does not occur. I have a dream that one day I will be able to provide for my family without having to worry about spending too much money to have a normal connection and that what I can do with the internet will change the world in a positive way, forever.
What will happen to us?
Not all of us can afford to use the internet now, and not all of us have access to the wonderful privilege of using an endless archive of information. If Internet Service Providers were to increase the cost in exchange of having a weaker connection many more people will be doomed, excluded form a virtual paradise. What will happen to those people? The same ones who will never be able to access the online news, the ones who won't be able to vote online for important events that impact THEIR lives along with the REST of the people around them. Their lives will never be the same... that's what will happen.
I have had a problem for a long, long time. Since as long as I could remember, I was lost. I used to sit out from class and think for hours of what would happen to me in the future, what I was going to do, what did I want to do. I remember this sort of depression that was on me since always, this shadow that blurred my vision of my future. Now, I am happy to say that this thing is fading, the disease in me, the same one that I had since the beginning of my childhood is finally going away. I now know what I want to do, where I want to go, what I want my legacy to be.
My dream is to make videos, YouTube videos. Like pewdiepie and many of the great YouTubers before him I want to change the world in a positive way, by doing what I love doing best. To be able to provide for a family using my imagination, my passion and my heart. How can I make videos without internet connection? How am I going to be able to fulfill my dream, if the dream itself doesn't exist??
ConclusionFor anyone who already doesn't know, the death of net neutrality is basically what will stop your connection, what will steal your money, and what will please the greedy bastards who call themselves Verizon and Comcast. Do you truly think that if this was to happen, that it would stop there? No, no, what I mentioned was merely the beginning. They Internet Service Providers will only get greedier, they won't stop here. This will spread across the world if we let it, to the point where people from different sides will not be able to communicate. That's right, no longer will you be able to Skype your relatives if you go off on a trip, and no longer will you meet wonderful people that can change the way you think.
- 3 paragraphs, 5 sentences each
- 1 picture
- 3 sources
Partners: My Truong and Audrey Pham
Topic: Adolescents, crime and brain development
Case: Jordan Brown was 11 years old in February 2009 when he shot his father’s pregnant fiancee while she was sleeping. Still today as Jordan is 14 years old, it has not been decided whether or not Jordan will be going to lifetime prison for two homicide(women and her fetus) first degree murders or remain in juvenile prison until he is 18 or 21 years old. Currently as of today, multiple news station claims that Brown might get a new trial for this.
Presentation: Short live debate
Should convicted as completely guilty and must be sent to adult jail
Not completely guilty, stay in juvenile and receive special treatment and attention
Must be sent to adult jail side:
Brown still executed his Father’s pregnant fiance. She was pregnant of 8 months so that is TWO deaths that Brown caused. Regardless of anything, he did what he did.
This could only be the beginning of his manifestation. He could end up being a lifetime criminal if we let him back into our society.
He killed his Father’s pregnant fiance in execution style so it was not accident. He intended to do that. If he intended to that, he needs to earn up to his own punishment.
If Brown is going to act like an adult and commit a crime that only adults would commit, then he needs to be served as an adult.
Although brain scans have shown that Brown’s brain is not fully developed yet because he was 11 years old at the time, he does not have any history or proof of psychological issues, therefore, mental illness is not being presented. He did have a mental disorder that would cause him to kill his Father’s pregnant fiance.
Stay in Juvenile prison and receive special treatment side:
The gun that Brown used to shoot his father’s fiance is a hunting gun that HIS FATHER bought for him during Christmas. It is the father’s responsibility because Brown at the age of 11, his mind is not fully functioned enough to own a gun (even if its a hunting gun).
After the shooting Brown showed no fear to the situation. He walked out the house and go school like an normal day. This evidence show that his brain is not functioning properly. Even adults after shooting a person they would show some fear but for Brown, it is just a normal day.
Yes, this might be the beginning of his manifestation, however is not fair to put him in adult prison. That was the reason we have juvenile in the first place.
Many brain develops were tested while he’s in juvenile prison. They also came to an conclusion that Brown brain is not fully functioning. At the age of 11, he should know what right vs. wrong and should know it is not okay to kill someone. However, his brain is not fully developed to understand the outcome of his action.
Not to mention that he might be jealous of the unborn child (his step brother). Being jealous should not be an excuse for him to kill. But he is too young to control his action towards his feelings. Just as how an adult is able to control their anger while is easier for kids to get angry.
- In my opinion, Brown should be responsible for his action. However, it is not fair to put him in adult prison and his father should be responsible for Brown’s action. Because without the gun, the crime couldn't be committed.
Congrats to the SLA Debate Team! A number of our debaters were recognized last night at the ASAP League Finals:
• Anna Sugrue and Nashay Day won first place in the Varsity Division by defeating Masterman's top team in the championship match.
• Kiamesso DaSilva and Eva Karlen captured first place in the Novice Division, going undefeated for the entire season.
• Ari Haven and Gabrielle Kreidie were recognized as top-speakers in the Novice Division, placing first and second respectively.
Overall, the SLA Debate Team captured first place in the Team Sweepstakes!!
Great season debaters; you should all be proud of your hard work.