Cher summed up the outrage of the net neutrality repeal in one fiery, all-caps tweet.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has announced sweeping plans to repeal net neutrality laws.

Upon hearing the news on Nov. 21 and discerning what it means for them, many Americans responded with a resounding ... huh?


Net neutrality may come across as a tricky, complex issue that's easy to tune out, especially if you don't necessarily consider yourself an internet person. But if you go online — which nearly 9 in 10 Americans reportedly do (and I bet you're one of them if you're reading this article) — the sweeping change under Donald Trump's administration will likely affect your internet use.

Let's parse through this together.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai defended the move on Twitter, calling the current laws "heavy-handed regulations."

Claiming that the new, lax rules can "save the open internet" through free market principals, Pai argued that his proposal will stop the federal government from "micromanaging" internet service providers (ISPs).

There's another side to the story though.

Enter: Cher.

Iconic. GIF from Gap.

The singer has blasted the president and his policies many times before, and this past Tuesday night was no different.

In her typical all-caps, emoji-filled fashion, Cher laid out why she thinks repealing net neutrality rules will be so harmful to everyday Americans.

Phrased more subtly, Cher's tweet basically says:

"Net neutrality means Trump can change the internet. It will include less Americans, not more. Now Comcast, AT&T, Google will show you only what they want you to see. Slower and more expensive at their whim. See less, charged more."

Cher has built a reputation on Twitter for her bombastic, often off-the-wall tweets. Do her thoughts on net neutrality actually add up?  

Sadly, one could certainly argue her take on net neutrality in fewer than 280 characters is a fairer assessment than the actual FCC chairman's.

Cher is totally right to say the repeal will make the internet accessible to "less Americans, not more."

Net neutrality is, in essence, another way of saying "equal access to the internet." It regulates the flow of internet data, so anything you're seeing or downloading online is delivered to your computer or smart phone at equal speeds, regardless of your internet provider or what website you're on. Net neutrality basically makes the internet a public utility, like electricity or water.

In repealing net neutrality, the FCC is giving significantly more power to telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon, who may be able to stop or slow internet access to certain websites of their choosing — like Amazon, Facebook, or Netflix — based on competing interests.

Supporters of the repeal, like Pai and the Trump administration, have tried to make the issue partisan by tying net neutrality to the Obama administration and the idea of big government.

But in effect, repealing net neutrality laws will likely make the internet less accessible to more people by hiking prices for users to see and download certain content. The move will largely let corporations decide who gets access to entertainment and information based on who's willing to sign up (and pay up) for their services.

To see this already in action, one must only look to Spain and Portugal, where the lack of net neutrality laws mean certain websites and services are only accessible if purchased in bundled packages, similar to cable TV in the U.S. While our own situation might not end up being as extreme, there have already been a plethora of net neutrality violations, signaling perhaps that U.S. ISPs aren't on its customers' side.

To be sure, Cher's tweets may come across as wacky or nonsensical at times...

... but when it comes to net neutrality, she hit the nail on the head.

To learn more about net neutrality, check out the video below and take action at www.battleforthenet.com.

Why net neutrality is so important.

Here's why net neutrality matters to you. 🇺🇸 🗽 📲 💻 And here's how you can help protect it: www.battleforthenet.com (via Fight For The Future)

Posted by Upworthy on Monday, November 27, 2017
Photo by Daniel Schludi on Unsplash
True

The global eradication of smallpox in 1980 is one of international public health's greatest successes. But in 1966, seven years after the World Health Organization announced a plan to rid the world of the disease, smallpox was still widespread. The culprits? A lack of funds, personnel and vaccine supply.

Meanwhile, outbreaks across South America, Africa, and Asia continued, as the highly contagious virus continued to kill three out of every 10 people who caught it, while leaving many survivors disfigured. It took a renewed commitment of resources from wealthy nations to fulfill the promise made in 1959.

Forty-one years later, although we face a different virus, the potential for vast destruction is just as great, and the challenges of funding, personnel and supply are still with us, along with last-mile distribution. Today, while 30% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated, with numbers rising every day, there is an overwhelming gap between wealthy countries and the rest of the world. It's becoming evident that the impact on the countries getting left behind will eventually boomerang back to affect us all.

Photo by ismail mohamed - SoviLe on Unsplash

The international nonprofit CARE recently released a policy paper that lays out the case for U.S. investment in a worldwide vaccination campaign. Founded 75 years ago, CARE works in over 100 countries and reaches more than 90 million people around the world through multiple humanitarian aid programs. Of note is the organization's worldwide reputation for its unshakeable commitment to the dignity of people; they're known for working hand-in-hand with communities and hold themselves to a high standard of accountability.

"As we enter into our second year of living with COVID-19, it has become painfully clear that the safety of any person depends on the global community's ability to protect every person," says Michelle Nunn, CARE USA's president and CEO. "While wealthy nations have begun inoculating their populations, new devastatingly lethal variants of the virus continue to emerge in countries like India, South Africa and Brazil. If vaccinations don't effectively reach lower-income countries now, the long-term impact of COVID-19 will be catastrophic."

Keep Reading Show less

On February 19, 2020, a group of outdoor adventurists took a 25-day rafting trip down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon. During the trip, they had no cell service and no contact with the outside world. When they ended they ended their journey on March 14, the man who pulled them ashore asked if they had been in touch with anyone else. When the rafters said no, the man sighed, then launched into an explanation of how the globe had been gripped by the coronavirus pandemic and everything had come to a screeching halt.

The rafters listened with bewilderment as they were told about toilet paper shortages and the NBA season being canceled and everyone being asked to stay at home. One of the river guides, who had done these kinds of off-grid excursions multiple times, said that they'd often joke about coming back to a completely different world—it had just never actually happened before.

The rafters' story was shared in the New York Times last spring, but they're not the only ones to have had such an experience.

Keep Reading Show less
Photo by Daniel Schludi on Unsplash
True

The global eradication of smallpox in 1980 is one of international public health's greatest successes. But in 1966, seven years after the World Health Organization announced a plan to rid the world of the disease, smallpox was still widespread. The culprits? A lack of funds, personnel and vaccine supply.

Meanwhile, outbreaks across South America, Africa, and Asia continued, as the highly contagious virus continued to kill three out of every 10 people who caught it, while leaving many survivors disfigured. It took a renewed commitment of resources from wealthy nations to fulfill the promise made in 1959.

Forty-one years later, although we face a different virus, the potential for vast destruction is just as great, and the challenges of funding, personnel and supply are still with us, along with last-mile distribution. Today, while 30% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated, with numbers rising every day, there is an overwhelming gap between wealthy countries and the rest of the world. It's becoming evident that the impact on the countries getting left behind will eventually boomerang back to affect us all.

Photo by ismail mohamed - SoviLe on Unsplash

The international nonprofit CARE recently released a policy paper that lays out the case for U.S. investment in a worldwide vaccination campaign. Founded 75 years ago, CARE works in over 100 countries and reaches more than 90 million people around the world through multiple humanitarian aid programs. Of note is the organization's worldwide reputation for its unshakeable commitment to the dignity of people; they're known for working hand-in-hand with communities and hold themselves to a high standard of accountability.

"As we enter into our second year of living with COVID-19, it has become painfully clear that the safety of any person depends on the global community's ability to protect every person," says Michelle Nunn, CARE USA's president and CEO. "While wealthy nations have begun inoculating their populations, new devastatingly lethal variants of the virus continue to emerge in countries like India, South Africa and Brazil. If vaccinations don't effectively reach lower-income countries now, the long-term impact of COVID-19 will be catastrophic."

Keep Reading Show less