“How do you think government (either in the United States or elsewhere) can best utilize technology to engage the public and make government more transparent and accessible?” I think this is an interesting question because technology has advanced so much through the years and continues to do so every day.
One way government can engage the public and make everything more accessible is by arranging an online voting system for elections. This process would have to be made as perfect as possible, but it would probably encourage more people to vote, which I’m sure, would make presidential candidates happy.
Also, it would be a great idea for the government to allow electronic questionnaires to be sent out to citizens to engage more public opinion and response. I know I would feel better about things knowing my voice was actually being heard. These questionnaires would be made available to people via the internet, meaning only people with internet access would be able to take part; however, I have read that President Obama has said that he wants to make broadband internet available to all communities. Broadband internet for everyone would be an amazing benefit. The issue of technology gaps with people who do not own computers can be solved by public libraries continuing to provide internet access on their computers for all to use.
In addition to these above suggestions, I think that broadcasting more governmental meetings like Congress, could be done via the Internet. Of course, not everything could be broadcasted due to safety concerns, but some topics could safely be discussed.
The more that the public feels they are being heard, the better for the government. Living in a country like the USA, we are blessed with the ability to voice whatever we feel is necessary. Encouraging the development of innovations would give the public more voice, which I think, would benefit the government.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Friday, November 14, 2008
Com125, Net Neutrality
The whole idea about whether or not the net should be neutral is pretty interesting to consider. Should the net be neutral and let whatever happens happen, or should there be regulations by the government of materials, programs, etc. occurring on the internet?
According to one of our assignmed readings this week, titled Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious, "proponents of net neutrality argue that cable and telecommunications form a duopoly that threatens the current system. They say that, without some type of anti-discrimination law or standards, cable and telecommunications companies could control users' access by blocking content from competitors, favoring certain applications, charging higher rates to deliver information into people's homes and offices and failing to inform people of their capacity." This is a valid point because of the fact that so many people are connected to the internet.
On the other hand, "Internet service providers should be able to direct heavy traffic and screen out some material, like viruses and spam. They say some content, like medical information, is more important--and therefore should take priority over--other information" (Net Neutrality). Some individuals feel that should be some kind of filter, informaiton protection and control over Internet content.
I think the interests of all internet users are at stake. I think parents would love to have some net control over information that is made available to their children, but college students would like to be able to find out anything they need to on any given subject.
Both arguments are interesting and put me in a mostly neutral state. On one hand, I feel that information should be controlled to an extent--problem being, what is that extent? On the other hand, I think the Interned has evolved into something amazing because of everything it is made up of. So, I guess I stand neutral on the subject of [net] neutrality. As corny as it is, it's true.
According to one of our assignmed readings this week, titled Net Neutrality Debate Remains Contentious, "proponents of net neutrality argue that cable and telecommunications form a duopoly that threatens the current system. They say that, without some type of anti-discrimination law or standards, cable and telecommunications companies could control users' access by blocking content from competitors, favoring certain applications, charging higher rates to deliver information into people's homes and offices and failing to inform people of their capacity." This is a valid point because of the fact that so many people are connected to the internet.
On the other hand, "Internet service providers should be able to direct heavy traffic and screen out some material, like viruses and spam. They say some content, like medical information, is more important--and therefore should take priority over--other information" (Net Neutrality). Some individuals feel that should be some kind of filter, informaiton protection and control over Internet content.
I think the interests of all internet users are at stake. I think parents would love to have some net control over information that is made available to their children, but college students would like to be able to find out anything they need to on any given subject.
Both arguments are interesting and put me in a mostly neutral state. On one hand, I feel that information should be controlled to an extent--problem being, what is that extent? On the other hand, I think the Interned has evolved into something amazing because of everything it is made up of. So, I guess I stand neutral on the subject of [net] neutrality. As corny as it is, it's true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)