1 comments:
- Vicki said...
- Free speech is something we take for granted even though it is not so free in many other places. It has become more than a philosophical discussion now that governments are involved. Whom do you believe should decide such things?
- April 14, 2010 12:46 PM
Well, it depends on the situation. I agree that when it comes to businesses and government offices, they should have some say over what goes in and out of their networks, not only for business reasons, but for security reasons too. At the same time, I don't think anybody should have their access to information limited. The way I envision it is that businesses can control what kind of file types can be downloaded using the business computer/networks. For example, there is no reason for an employee to be downloading music or videos (even if paid for) during business hours (unless that's what the business is in). Those are things that should be done at home. Factory workers or hospital staff should not be spending their time on the clock on Facebook or YouTube, they have a job to do.
When it comes to censorship and citizens of a country as a whole, there should be no censorship. I don't understand why the countries that still censor internet traffic keep fighting a battle that they seemed destined to lose. Looking at history, censorship efforts almost always fail. Even if you go back only 20-25 years ago, before the Iron Curtain fell, most of Eastern Europe, Russia, and the Middle East saw the effects of some kind of censorship under the Communist government. I know these governments see censorship as a form of control over the populace and a way of staying in power, but as history tells us, only a rare few manage to keep control for long periods of time.
I think that it is up to the public to decide what they want to see or do, and no government can control it. Look at the way TV turned out. Today, you can see almost anything on TV. Not too long ago, broadcasts were not allowed to use certain words or depict certain acts. They still aren't to a certain extent, but for the most part, especially on cable and premium channels, you get everything from violence, to drug use, to nudity. The point is, that if you are watching these channels, it is because you chose to do so. You turned the TV on, changed the channel, and stopped on a channel that looks interesting, and in some cases this is a channel that you are paying extra for. If you object to what is being shown, you can always change the channel. It is true that the worst of what you can find on TV doesn't compare to the worst of what you can find on the Internet, but, again, in most cases you have a choice of going to that site or not. The exceptions are pop-up ads which we have no control over, but presently, most pop-up blockers do a decent job of filtering out the worst offenders. But, other than pop-ups, you have a choice when browsing the internet.
If internet sites had clear rating standards for content, like TV broadcasts and movies already do, then accessing the internet would be safer, while preserving freedom of speech. For example, if each website had a label clearly visible upon entering whether the site is rated for minors or not, and the reasons for the rating, and a way of broadcasting this rating to filtering programs, then surfing the internet would be like watching TV. Parents could set a filter program to filter out anything that is rated above a certain age, kind of like they already do with TV now. There are ways to do this now, but they don't always do it effectively, and they mostly rely on white lists of websites, based on keywords, or other criteria that are fallible. One problem with this is that some filters are overly aggressive. For example, the network at my parent's house filters any websites related to torrents, blocking most websites where you can find these files. However it misses one major site, and blocks most search results (which I can get around by mistyping the word torrent as torent
A great tool that I use in addition to pop-up blockers is an extension available for most browsers called WOT: Wheel of Trust. The way it works is that whenever you visit a site you can rate its based on reliability, trustworthiness, privacy, and child safety. It takes all the ratings that users submit and aggregates them into a rating that is displayed next to links and next to the browser bar as a circle that goes from red to green. Green means you're good to go. Red means that this site is questionable, and you should be cautious before proceeding and giving out any information. But it gives you a clear choice: "Do you still want to go this site, or No". You aren't being denied access because someone thinks this site is objectionable, but rather you are being warned, and if you choose to proceed you are responsible for what you see or what happens. While this still isn't the best way to rate sites because it depends wholly on user ratings, so if a site isn't visited and rated it won't have a rating to display. However a system similar to this would ensure that we aren't bombarded with sites and information we don't want to see, while still protecting the freedom of speech.
In summary, censorship, and control over internet content and freedom of speech is not something that is black and white. In certain rare cases it is beneficial, and even highly recommended (e.g. military censorship of letters sent home from war zones, for security reasons). But it is not something that can be controlled by the government. The people should have a right to access any information they choose. Based on history, it is inevitable that the people will eventually win when it comes to government censorship and free speech. The only difference is whether that comes about as a result of a war or revolution, or as a result peaceful and open discussion about the issue.
Link to WoT website: http://www.mywot.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment