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
More

I'm staring at my screen watching the President of the United States speak before a stadium full of people in North Carolina. He launches into a lie-laced attack on Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and the crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!"

The President does nothing. Says nothing. He just stands there and waits for the crowd to finish their outburst.

WATCH: Trump rally crowd chants 'send her back' after he criticizes Rep. Ilhan Omar www.youtube.com

My mind flashes to another President of the United States speaking to a stadium full of people in North Carolina in 2016. A heckler in the crowd—an old man in uniform holding up a TRUMP sign—starts shouting, disrupting the speech. The crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

Keep Reading Show less
Recommended
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet

Policing women's bodies — and by consequence their clothes — is nothing new to women across the globe. But this mother's "legging problem" is particularly ridiculous.

What someone wears, regardless of gender, is a personal choice. Sadly, many folks like Maryann White, mother of four sons, think women's attire — particularly women's leggings are a threat to men.

While sitting in mass at the University of Notre Dame, White was aghast by the spandex attire the young women in front of her were sporting.

Keep Reading Show less
More

Men are sharing examples of how they step up and step in when they see problematic behaviors in their peers, and people are here for it.

Twitter user "feminist next door" posed an inquiry to her followers, asking "good guys" to share times they saw misogyny or predatory behavior and did something about it. "What did you say," she asked. "What are your suggestions for the other other men in this situation?" She added a perfectly fitting hashtag: #NotCoolMan.

Not only did the good guys show up for the thread, but their stories show how men can interrupt situations when they see women being mistreated and help put a stop to it.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture