Net neutrality was repealed Thursday when the FCC voted 3-2 to dismantle the Obama era initiative. The vote was split neatly along party lines as Republicans Ajit Pai, Michael O’Rielly, and Brendan Carr vehemently expressed their support for the repeal while Democratic commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn voted against the repeal.

In the wake of this highly controversial vote, many opponents of the decision have taken to social media sites like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, and Tumblr to voice their discontent. However, misinformation runs rampant in these times of chaos so here are a few facts about the debate.

What is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is a government mandate imposed on internet service providers (ISP) by the FCC themselves in 2015, during the Obama administration. It prevents broadband providers like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon from restricting the speed and availability of certain websites and content providers based their ability to turn a profit. Simply put, ISP’s have to treat all websites equally. The Obama administration called for net neutrality, citing its potential to raise the diversity of the internet and thus create avenues for communication and innovation. The Trump administration, however, is a staunch believer in decreasing government regulation, which is why they are pushing to repeal net neutrality and stop treating it as a public commodity, like phone service.

How does this affect consumers?

If governmental regulations don’t prohibit ISP’s from displaying favoritism to big sites that generate a lot of revenue, they could potentially make it more difficult for smaller, individual-based sites like Etsy and independent news sites to reach the general public. This could impact the way that information is currently shared on the internet–the most pressing issue is the propensity of “fast lanes” in which major companies like Netflix and Google can pay to have their services streamed more quickly to consumers. This creates an advantage for these companies that might edge out competition from smaller sites like Etsy and Vimeo that could fall into obsolescence since they can’t afford the “fast lane”.

Big ISPs like Comcast and Verizon tend to also favor their own shares. In 2011, FCC approved Comcast’s allocation of major NBCUniversal shares which effectively put NBC channels and productions, including MSNBC and Hulu, under Comcast’s jurisdiction. In mid-2017, Verizon was in talks about a merger with Comcast which would greatly increase both companies’ power in the media and the internet. Obviously, these corporations are focused on their own profits, so without net neutrality, they could easy favor their own news media and websites while throttling speeds from conflicting sources. Comcast has voiced its support for the repeal of net neutrality ever since Ajit Pai first suggested it, and many consumers fear that independent news sources won’t be able to get their messages to the broad audience they can reach now, leading to a decrease in communications and a potential increase in “alternative facts”.

What are the arguments for the repeal?

Technically, net neutrality is only two years old–as aforementioned, it was only ushered in during Obama’s time in office in 2015. The repeal of net neutrality, then, does not equate to the “end of the internet forever”; in fact, many people will probably not even notice a significant difference in their internet usage.

Proponents of the repeal cite their overall mistrust of big government regulations–the Internet is the most common avenue of success of entrepreneurs, artists, musicians, and others who pursue creative careers. Who is the government, then, to micromanage this resource? The repeal of net neutrality would create a “hands-off” precedent, a prospect that excites many devolutionary Republicans and techies alike.

Those who dislike the titan ISP’s have also expressed their support of the repeal. With the current regulations in place, the internet has no room to grow. Everyone gets the ability to reach a mass audience, which may not be in the best interest of the people. Reputed news sources are held in the same regard as the political testimony of a 35-year-old man living in his mother’s basement–why should these sources be treated the same? Net neutrality allows this, and it may allow the spread of misinformation. If only reputed news sources were able to report the news to a broad audience, information management would become more efficient and this could lead to a better informed American citizenry.

What are the arguments against the repeal?

The thousands of tweets on the #NetNeutrality tag on Twitter are evidence that there is a significant public outrage at the FCC’s decision to repeal Net Neutrality. More than 80 percent of Americans showed support from net neutrality, and this support extended across party boundaries with 75% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats expressing opposition to the repeal.

One of the main arguments in support of Net neutrality is the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and press for all Americans. The repeal effectively allows ISP’s the ability to choose whose information they endorse; independent news sites would have their scope severely inhibited. In addition, ISP’s could show favoritism to certain interest groups and their messages over others depending on the highest bidder. The resulting corruption and polarization that would ensue directly impacts Americans’ access to a broad range of viewpoints, opinions, and information.

Another widely feared impact of the repeal is the exorbitant prices that consumers may have to start paying for services they use for free everyday. Now that consumers have cut ties with cable TV and moved to online streaming services, ISP’s are starting to earn revenue from their most profitable service. Without net neutrality, nothing really stops ISP’s from raising broadband prices in order to pad their dwindling profits. This means that a significant price jump in internet bills may be a staple of the future and extra costs may be added to popular data-guzzlers like Youtube and Twitter.

What happens now?

Although the FCC has made their decision clear, many special interest groups like Public Knowledge as well as companies like Netflix have lawyered up, intending to take their cases through every legal channel possible in order to reverse the FCC decision. They may cite the FCC’s decision as capricious, which means fickle or volatile, especially since the decision to enact net neutrality was made only two years ago. Some interest groups like Free Press and Demand Knowledge are lobbying Congress to overturn the FCC’s decision, and Twitter campaigns following the vote have urged people to contact their representatives and voice their opposition.

The Internet is a phenomenal resource and there is very little anyone can do to mitigate its immense powers. Net neutrality is simply one of the many regulations that have tried to impose order on the chaos of hundreds of millions of minds thinking at once. Although the FCC’s decision has potential ramifications that inhibit some of the freedoms consumers have gotten used to enjoying on the internet, the world wide web is a study in competition and evolution.

The internet will live to see another day.