Hotspot Shield Helps Secure Your Devices at Home, Plus You Can Stream Your Favorite Global Content on Apple TV
We recently announced Hotspot Shield VPN for Wi-Fi Router, which protects your home network at the source. If …
This post, written by AnchorFree’s Co-Founder & CEO David Gorodyansky, originally appeared on TechCrunch, Oct. 11, 2018
Congressman Ro Khanna’s proposed Internet Bill of Rights
But what should not be neglected is that we as individuals have not just rights but also moral obligations to this public good — the internet. The web positively impacts our lives in a meaningful fashion, and we have a collective responsibility to nurture and keep it that way.
Speaking to the specific rights listed in the bill, we can likely all agree that citizens should have control over information collected about them, and that we should not be discriminated against based on that personal data. We probably all concur that Internet Service Providers should not be permitted to block, throttle or engage in paid prioritization that would negatively impact our ability to access the world’s information. And I’m sure we all want access to numerous affordable internet providers with clear and transparent pricing.
These are all elements included in Congressman Khanna’s proposal; all things that I wholeheartedly support.
As we’ve seen of late with Facebook, Google,
What we must understand, however, is that corporations, governments and individuals all rely on the same internet to prosper. Each group should have its own set of rights as well as responsibilities. And it’s those responsibilities that need more focus.
Take, for example, littering. There may be regulations in place that prevent people from discarding their trash by the side of the road. But regardless of these laws, there’s also a moral obligation we have to protect our environment and the world in which we live. For the most part, people abide by these obligations because it’s the right thing to do and because of social pressure to keep the place they live beautiful — not because they have a fear of being fined for littering.
We should approach the protection of the internet in the same way.
We should hold individuals, corporations and governments to a higher standard and delineate their responsibilities to the internet. All three groups should accept and fulfill those responsibilities, not because we create laws and fines, but because it is in their best interests.
For individuals, the internet has given them powers beyond their wildest dreams, and it continues to connect us in amazing ways. For corporations, it has granted access to massively lucrative markets far and wide that would never have been accessible before. For governments, it has allowed them to provide better services to their citizens and has created never before seen levels of tax revenue from the creation of businesses both between and outside their physical borders.
Everyone — and I mean everyone — has gained (and will continue to gain) from protecting an open internet, and we as a society need to recognize that and start imposing strong pressure against those who do not live up to their responsibilities.
We as people of the world should feel tremendously grateful to all the parties that contributed to the internet we have today. If a short-sighted government decides it wants to restrict the internet within its physical borders, this should not be permitted. It will not only hurt us, but it will hurt that very government by decreasing international trade and thus tax revenue, as well as decreasing the trust that the citizens of that country place in their government. Governments often act against their long-term interests in pursuit of short-term thinking, thus we have two billion people living in places with heavy restrictions on access to online information.
When an Internet Service Provider seeks full control over what content it provides over its part of the internet, this, again, should not be allowed. It will, in the end, hurt that very Internet Service Provider’s revenue; a weaker, less diverse internet will inevitably create less demand for the very service they are providing along with a loss of trust and loyalty from their customers.
Without the internet, our world would come grinding to a halt. Any limitations on the open internet will simply slow our progress and prosperity as a human race. And, poignantly, the perpetrators of those limitations stand to lose just as much as any of us.
We have a moral responsibility, then, to ensure the internet remains aligned with its original purpose. Sure, none of us could have predicted back in 1989 the vast impact the World Wide Web would have — probably not even Sir Tim Berners-Lee himself — but in a nutshell, it exists to connect people, WHEREVER they may be, to a wealth of online information, to other people, and to empower individuals to make their lives better.
This is only possible with an open and free internet.
Over the next five years, billions of devices — such as our garage door openers, refrigerators, thermostats
Now is the time to adequately provide Americans and people around the world with basic online protections, and it is encouraging to see people like Congressman Khanna advancing the conversation. We can only hope this Internet Bill of Rights remains bipartisan and real change occurs.
Regardless of the outcome, we must not neglect our moral obligations — whether individual internet users, large corporations, or governments. We all shoulder a responsibility to maintain an open internet. After all, it is perhaps the most significant and impactful creation in modern society.