If you’re to believe the worst of the doomsday predictions about the recent striking down of “Net Neutrality” regulations, then you’re to believe we’re headed for a completely divided internet of digital ghettos, exclusive walled gardens, and certain websites receiving preferential treatment over others.
But in truth, we’re already there.
As a music fan, you might remember the Net Neutrality issue becoming a big cause célèbre within the music community back in 2017. Hundreds of musicians like R.E.M., My Morning Jacket, and Killer Mike signed a petition imploring that the Net Neutrality rules not be rolled back. Labels such as Bloodshot Records, Sub Pop, and Third Man Records spoke up as well, warning it would make their websites, and the websites for their independent artists difficult to impossible to access.
Even Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and Google all came out in favor of maintaining the Net Neutrality regulations at the time, before softening their positions, and generally going silent on the matter as time went on, in part because it seemed the worst fears of what deregulation could mean were unlikely to come to fruition.
What were those fears? That Internet Service Providers, or ISPs, would start charging consumers different rates to access different web properties, sort of like cable. For example, there might be one price for a “basic” internet service, and then upcharges for YouTube, Facebook, Rolling Stone, or The New York Times. Want to get access to independent websites like Saving Country Music or SturgillSimpson.com? We’ll that might be another charge.
But none of this came to fruition, even when the regulations were rolled back by the FCC in 2018 during the first Trump Administration. In fact, nothing really materially changed on the consumer side of the internet from the move at all, though perhaps hypothetically, it still could at some point. But up until The Biden Administration reinstated the rules in 2024, the fear of a tiered internet never came to fruition. Then earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals basically said the FCC can’t reinstate the Net Neutrality rules, meaning they’re dead for good unless Congress acts.
I won’t bore you with any more of the technical details on Net Neutrality here. Feel free to read up on it more if you wish. My only point is that we didn’t need some sort of dystopian regulation—or the lack thereof—to turn the internet into a distinctly anti-democratic walled off maze bifurcating the have’s and have not’s. We did this ourselves through paywalls and subscription-based websites.
Please understand, this is not an assertion that the rolling back of the Net Neutrality regulations couldn’t be a concern for the future. But what’s of greater concern is the actual reality of the internet today, not the hypothetical of what might happen tomorrow now that Net Neutrality regs are no longer in place, especially after we’ve already lived in a non Net Neutrality world for a while.
As the below social media post illustrates, the concern for rolling back Net Neutrality regulations is that the internet would no longer be “free and open.”
But the internet is not free and open. Far from it. And Net Neutrality has nothing to do with it. The irony is that if you actually click on the link for the Rolling Stone and are not a subscriber to the publication, this is what you’ll see.
What major websites are still free? Places like Barstool Sports and Whiskey Riff, a.k.a. the digital ghetto. It also happens to be than many free websites that are suddenly veering to the political right, and this might be one of the reasons recent elections around the globe are going the way they are. Elite, high-brow discussions about culture and politics are often happening behind paywalls, inaccessible to average citizens who either can’t or won’t pay for news when there’s so many other free, ad-supported options.
You can’t wage a revolution behind a paywall. It’s even difficult to engage in meaningful activism if you’re limiting your audience. One of the reason it feels like were living in two separate Americas is because we’re consuming two separate tiers of news. And one of the most pernicious aspects of paywalls is that if you don’t interface with them, you have no idea that so many internet users are.
Paying a modest subscription for your local newspaper, or perhaps a national publication or two makes sense. But as our perspectives become increasingly siloed, it’s perhaps never more important to interface with differing viewpoints that challenge our own. That’s difficult to impossible under the current model. Yes, journalists and publications need to be paid. But it’s unclear if paywalls actually work to increase revenue. Though they do in some cases, in others, revenue decreases.
As one study explained, “The research revealed that the effects of paywalls varied significantly from newspaper to newspaper, ranging from a 24 percent increase to a 12 percent decline in total revenue…While paywalls brought a success for some newspapers, the net effect of a paywall on digital revenue was negative for many newspapers as a significant decline in digital advertising revenue due to declined visits to their websites virtually cancelled the newly generated digital subscription revenue.”
What does any of this have to do with country music? Over the last eight years or so, we’ve seen an increasing amount of conversations about country music in many of these paywalled and elite publications that are completely detached from reality, and the lives country fans actually live. This is because this media is not for actual country fans who are less likely to subscribe to The New York Times or The Washington Post, or even Texas Monthly. It is for their more upper crust clientele who will subscribe, including some who then turn their nose down on America’s unwashed rural population.
A free and open internet? That hasn’t been the reality for years now, and it’s getting worse by the minute like the frog getting cooked in the boiling pot as the majority of the internet gets placed behind blinders, irrespective of Net Neutrality concerns. How do we stop it? Should important local and national news be subsidized like farming since it’s so essential to democracy? Should advertising models be more lucrative to help keep the internet open? Perhaps there’s no easy solution.
But let’s face it, the problem of a tiered and walled-off internet isn’t something to fear for the future. It’s already here.
How do economic incentives and corporate interests shape the ”free and open internet” as discussed by Dr. Martinez?
Interview with Dr. elena Martinez, Digital Media and Policy ExpertBy archyde News
Archyde: Thank you for joining us today, Dr.Martinez.As a leading expert in digital media and policy, you’ve been closely following the developments around Net Neutrality and the broader implications for the internet. Let’s start with the recent ruling by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down the FCC’s attempt to reinstate Net Neutrality rules. What does this mean for the future of the internet?
Dr. Martinez: Thank you for having me. The Sixth Circuit’s decision is important because it effectively ends the FCC’s ability to regulate the internet under the framework of Net Neutrality unless Congress intervenes.This ruling leaves the door open for Internet Service Providers (isps) to perhaps prioritize certain types of traffic or charge differential rates for access to specific websites or services. However, as we’ve seen since the initial rollback of Net Neutrality in 2018, the feared dystopian scenarios—like tiered internet access—haven’t materialized. That said, the absence of regulation doesn’t mean the internet is free and open.
Archyde: You mention that the internet isn’t truly free and open, even without Net Neutrality. Can you elaborate on that?
Dr.Martinez: Absolutely. The conversation around Net Neutrality often centers on the idea of a “free and open internet,” but the reality is that the internet has already become fragmented and stratified. Paywalls, subscription models, and ad-supported platforms have created a digital landscape where access to facts and content is increasingly gated. For example, major publications like The New York Times and Rolling Stone require subscriptions to read their articles, while platforms like YouTube and Facebook rely on algorithms that prioritize certain content over others. This creates a situation where the internet is far from democratic—it’s shaped by economic incentives and corporate interests.
Archyde: That’s an fascinating point. Do you think the rise of paywalls and subscription models has contributed to the polarization we see online?
Dr. Martinez: Without a doubt. When high-quality journalism and in-depth analysis are locked behind paywalls, it creates a divide between those who can afford access and those who cannot. This leaves a significant portion of the population reliant on free, ad-supported platforms, which often prioritize sensationalism and clickbait over substantive content. Over time, this dynamic can exacerbate political polarization, as people are exposed to vastly different information ecosystems. As a notable example, free platforms like Barstool Sports or Whiskey Riff may cater to specific audiences, while elite discussions about culture and politics happen behind paywalls, inaccessible to the average person.
Archyde: Given this reality, do you think the debate over Net Neutrality is somewhat misplaced?
Dr.Martinez: In some ways, yes. While Net Neutrality is an vital issue, it’s only one piece of the puzzle.The broader challenge is addressing the economic and structural forces that shape the internet. Even with Net neutrality in place, we’d still have to contend with issues like data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the monopolistic practices of tech giants. What we need is a more holistic approach to digital policy—one that ensures equitable access to information while also holding platforms accountable for their role in shaping public discourse.
Archyde: Looking ahead, what do you think the future holds for the internet?
Dr. Martinez: The future of the internet will depend on how we choose to regulate—or not regulate—the digital space. Without Net Neutrality,there’s a risk that ISPs could eventually start prioritizing certain types of traffic,which could further entrench existing inequalities. At the same time, the rise of decentralized technologies like blockchain and peer-to-peer networks offers the potential for a more democratic and user-controlled internet. Ultimately, the direction we take will depend on the choices we make as a society—whether we prioritize profit over equity, or whether we work to create a digital landscape that serves the public good.
Archyde: Thank you, Dr. Martinez, for your insights. It’s clear that the challenges facing the internet go far beyond Net Neutrality, and addressing them will require a nuanced and comprehensive approach.
Dr. Martinez: Thank you. It’s been a pleasure discussing thes important issues with you.
End of Interview
Dr. Elena Martinez is a professor of Digital Media and Policy at Stanford University and the author of several books on the intersection of technology, media, and democracy.
How can we effectively balance the need for sustainable revenue models in digital content creation with the crucial goal of maintaining an open and accessible internet for all?
M and clickbait over nuanced, fact-based reporting. The result is a fragmented data ecosystem where people are exposed to vastly different realities depending on their ability or willingness to pay for content. this exacerbates polarization as it limits the shared understanding of facts and events that is essential for a functioning democracy.Archyde: That’s a compelling argument. Do you see any potential solutions to this problem, or is this just the inevitable direction of the internet?
Dr. Martinez: It’s not inevitable, but it will require a concerted effort to address. one potential solution is to rethink how we fund journalism and digital content. For example, public subsidies or nonprofit models could help ensure that high-quality information remains accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford it. Another approach is to strengthen regulations around advertising and algorithms to ensure that platforms prioritize diversity of thought and factual accuracy over engagement metrics that often favor sensationalism.
Additionally, there’s a growing movement to support independent media outlets that rely on small donations or community funding rather then corporate sponsorships or paywalls. Thes outlets often provide more balanced and diverse perspectives, but they need greater visibility and support to compete with larger, corporate-backed entities.
Ultimately, the challenge is to balance the need for sustainable revenue models with the imperative to keep the internet open and accessible. This will require collaboration between policymakers, tech companies, and the public to create a digital landscape that serves the common good rather than just corporate interests.
Archyde: Thank you,Dr. Martinez, for your insights.It’s clear that the future of the internet is at a crossroads, and your perspective sheds light on the complexities of this issue.
Dr. Martinez: Thank you.It’s a critical conversation,and I hope we can continue to explore ways to ensure that the internet remains a tool for empowerment and connection,rather than division and exclusion.
