The era of information that we currently live in houses many dangers to the unwary internet explorer. Some claim that governments should further regulate it but I think that trying to control the Internet would be folly.
The case can be made that regulating internet traffic aids in the fight against terrorism, reduces cyber-bullying and can remedy the effects of data theft. There’s ample evidence that the data sharing capabilities of the Internet have ruined many lives, whether through cyber-bullying, online witch hunts, or online scams. A heavily supervised and restricted Internet could (if such a system was feasible) alleviate these problems.
On the other hand, this would be a hefty blow to free speech. Those who would censor content are fallible and bribable. The Internet would become the marketing grounds of conglomerate corporations. The advertisements of smaller competitors would be rejected as unsuitable content, along with any criticisms of the products, most likely.
Furthermore, it is impossible to control all of Internet traffic. In my opinion, governments should instead opt to incentivise website owners to foster positive communities and reward such actions. For example, if bullying is universally considered unacceptable on a website, the few who would try to do it anyway could be swiftly dealt with. It would use up less of the government’s resources and there wouldn’t be a central authority that could control all of it.
What it comes down to is whether or not it is possible to rein in the negative emotions and habits of pseudonymous users and whether it makes a difference in the community (due to the influx of new unconditioned users which works against the effect). I believe that making the Internet a better place can be achieved without state censorship and control.
Kommentaare ei ole:
Postita kommentaar