Is change always necessary for the greater good? Can we alter something that has left us confused and astounded for so many years? What if there will be consequences to the actions we put forth? Throughout the years, the definition of the Internet has given us an ever changing meaning. The Web has changed who in control, who creates the content, who has a say, and what defines right and wrong. Astra Taylor, a Canadian-American documentary filmmaker and writer, challenges the flaws of the Web in her book, The People’s Platform. Taylor describes the difficulties the Internet has had throughout the course of its existence while also presenting the information in a non-catastrophic mood. Although Taylor brings in most of her argument through using a journalistic view and honesty, she eventually has a solution towards the end that may seem that the Internet isn’t so horrible after all. The information she puts forth seems promising in her own perspective. In my own opinion her own solution is not necessary to reform the entire base of the Internet because the Internet is such a vast and complicated …show more content…
The public square is meant to become a free source in which millions of users can share their personal feelings about anything. Unfortunately, businesses and companies just like in Google Books can spread their own money and invest into what other Twitter users are looking into online. Another issue Twitter has is that the rights and the services they provide do not necessarily mean we are always guaranteed what we say is allowed. The fact that we can post whatever we want does not always mean we are always protected by our first amendment. Twitter has rights to ban a user because of hateful speech, their profile, or any reason. It gives people something to discuss about when the topic arises. Is it okay for websites to control what we can do and if so, what is the definition between the right and
In conclusion, Carr and Gladwell’s essays have proven that the internet positive effects are outweighed by its negative effects. Carr has found he is unable to finish a full text anymore or concentrate. He thinks that the internet has taken our natural intelligence and turned it into artificial intelligence. Gladwell discusses how nowadays, social activism doesn’t have the same risk or impact as former revolutions such as the Civil Rights Movement. The internet is mostly based on weak ties based among people who do not truly know each other and would not risk their lives for their
This source supplies my paper with more evidence of how freedom of speech is in a dangerous place. American has always stood by freedom of speech, and to see how social media platforms try to manipulate and take off as the choose to increase slight bias is unpleasant. The article establishes a worry to the fellow readers that hold freedom of speech so high and that it is at risk. The article manages to explain why freedom of speech is in danger, and why there should be no limits to free speech.
If limitations are placed on some things, but not others, then it will lead to a great deal of conflict. Freedom of expression is a great thing, however it does come along with a few negative side effects. This including, hateful, ignorant, and rude individuals who do not care what they say. Some want to be able to control these hateful people and restrict what they are permitted to do or say. But, where is the gray line?
And the problem the social media sites are helping the NSA when we have put all of our trust and that easily it could be revoked. According to Rob D 'Ovido “Having traded our freedoms for a phantom promise of security, government eyes” (D 'Ovido). For example, Cameron Dambrosio, a teenager from Massachusetts posted a video online a rap he made about the Boston marathon bombing, the rap had references to the white house and the bombing itself, which resulted in his getting arrested in May 2013, and charging him with communicating terrorist threats, which could land him a twenty year sentence. One cannot argue that he used foul language, and said words that were ill-mannered, but that does not give the right to officials to arrest people on a basis of rap. What happen with freedom of speech? People out in the middle east are uprooting entire regimes, because they are not giving them the basic human right, like freedom of speech or privacy. For an example, look at Egypt, they have over thrown an regime that ruled for 40 years. I am not comparing those awful regimes to our government, all we need is to calculate our choices more, and the government should have more faith in the citizens. We live in an era where we are being watched by surveillance cameras 24/7, and also having our calls being tapped. Even with all the peeping toms, censorship, and the spying, freedom of speech
...ondemned or punished. Everyone has the right to express their point of view. Free speech gave online community abundant resources that broaden viewers’ horizon and keep people update of ideas from different perspectives. A free community gives people the freedom to actively choose what they want rather than accept what authority think is good for them passively. And online governance should serve people rather than abuse human rights like free speech no matter what they are trying to protect.
With an entity as vast as the Internet, it is not surprising that a variety of unanswered questions will arise. I’m positive that the Internet will continue to confound scholars as it continues to quickly evolve. By analyzing the views of the celebrants and skeptics, I have been able to understand the potential that the internet has. By using the PEC, I have been able to understand how democracy and capitalism relate to the issues of the Internet. In the future, I hope that society can develop a further understanding of the Internet and move toward the Internet that the celebrants had hoped for.
Book banning is getting out of control so badly, that Florida banned book banning for the most part, and Iowa is reinstating some books and banning other books like books about gays and how to kill off humanity by being gay. Social media is not any better than the book banning, because the social media part is like The Truman Show, whereas the book banning is like Fahrenheit 451. Anyways, in some ways, people who create social media are essentially watching their users, because most times, when an account is created, they’ll ask for an address, first and last name, gender, nationality, ethnicity, birthday, etc., so it’s essentially watching, even if they aren’t. So, people nowadays are way more out of control than they were in times like the Cold War, or
Since the dawn of society, a higher power has always taken place to keep everything in order. To keep order, rules, and regulations have been placed for the majority to remain obedient. Some try to maintain human rights, while others haven’t. One of these rights is free speech, the allowance of people to express any idea, thought, or whatever is on their mind to whoever, wherever, and whenever. Other governments or higher powers do not approve of this right and do whatever to suppress or censor this ability to spread thought and ideas.
Manipulating information on the internet whether it be the news, social media and websites could not be any easier, therefore creating constant distrust among each other. Snyder describes the importance of having a secure private life through the dangers of the internet and how it can manipulate information, how society is getting closer to totalitarianism and how easy it is for tyrants to control society’s perception of certain information. The internet has no laws restricting what we can and cannot do, therefore it can be easy to manipulate what we consume and what we put out. That is why Snyder suggests that, “Consider using alternative forms of the internet, or simply using it less.”
Internet as a medium has been a thoroughly discussed topic, especially in recent years with the rise of the World Wide Web. Analysis of relevant literature in the topic shows that the internet is not a new medium. This argument can be shown by looking more in depth into what defines a medium and what defines the internet. From that analysis by looking from a historical point of view the internet can be seen as an old medium which uses re-mediation to deliver content to users. The connection between internet and its users has helped the internet influence the way media is viewed today. Although the internet is not a new medium the content it presents is new. The advances in technology have helped the use of the internet reach new heights in terms of interest and it's capabilities are now being utilised by the masses. This rise in popularity has given the implication that the internet is new. These points can be analysed in more depth which has led me to take the stance that the internet is not a new medium.
In the January 18th, 2012 New York Times article “The False Ideals of the Web”, Jaron Lanier attempts to take a very difficult issue – one that many view in terms of black or white – and find some middle ground. Unfortunately, what he ends up doing in the article is create an either/or situation, rather than find any middle ground. In the end we are left in the same situation that we started with.
We as a people of the United States are guaranteed the right of free speech under the first amendment of the bill of rights. The first amendment has always been a difficult but necessary part of American life. It allows us to say what needs to be said without the fear of prosecution. Without this law we would be unable to question our leaders and society. The ability to speak our minds is what keeps us a truly free nation. However, this means we have always had to put up with other peoples opinions no matter how false they may be. The internet follows the same pattern. We have learned not to trust everything that is written down. It is our responsibility to refute anything that is incorrect or inappropriate just as it is our responsibility to do so in real life situations. For example, we could no more shut up a person who believes in white supremacy by arresting them for their beliefs then we could block them from the free space of the internet. We can not punish someone for their beliefs even if those beliefs go against everything we know to be true.
First of all, freedom of speech on social media. Social media is strongly developing nowadays. On social media, free speech is everywhere. Noel Diem demonstrates “it is a way for some people to vent their anger without feeling self-conscious, nervous, or upset without resorting to violent actions” (3). Americans feel free to speak out their opinions and feelings at everywhere, even on social media. Everyone can acknowledge that people might
I believe power corrupts more because once people are given it, they abuse it in order to benefit themselves. People with power don’t act with the well being of everyone else as their priority even though they should because in the end, it would benefit more people. People with power are possessed by their greed whereas people with more beneficial priorities are too powerless in order to make a difference. Powerless people don’t charge consumers more than twice the price the good actually costs them, they are happy to be making a dollar by the end of the day. People with power do just that
On social media, each individual has the power to be influential and important. There is a freedom of expression on social media that we are allowed to express. A user on Facebook can post anything they want or anything they want for free.... ... middle of paper ... ...