My First Draft
Everyday's chatter are came form the internet news or issues. People use the internet naturally without considering about 'censorship on the internet.' However, after the '세월호 사건' happened, people began to consider about lots of things about Korea government and 'censorship on the media' is one of them. Especially we have to think about whether 'censorship on the internet is necessary or not.'
Through the experience of issues which are 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' and 'issue of Yoo byung eun', especially Korean could recognize riskiness of censorship on the internet. As the result, people trying to recognize and decide whether the censorship is necessary on the internet.
Internet censorship in China is very opperssive, so it's most popular example of internet censorship. From China's internet censorship, not only Korean but also people all around the world already knew the riskiness of the internet censorship. Then, we have to know that internet censorship makes another side effect and also makes people fool. Streisand effect is one of that and if people ignore the riskiness of internet censorship, they won't enjoy their freedom anymore.
In addition, we have to be conative against internet censorship around us. Therefore, from now on I will explain reasons why internet censorship is not necessary.
It's hard to find logical evidences that support my argument. Therefore, I'll use expert opinions and relevant examples from news and also relevant declarations.
First, to decide whether internet censorship is necessary or not, people have to consider the basic purpose of censorship on the internet and netizen's duty of deciding actively about issues. Especially netizens have their duty of deciding whether a source is reliable. We already know that through 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' and 'issue of Yoo byung eun' that were also issued because of the media's relibility. In this situation, Korean government censored the internet, also media regarded citizens as fool who can't decide whether informations about those issues are reliable or not. Therefore, as the result, people could reconsider their duty to decide whether a source is reliable. In addition, there is an also example that shows netizens can recieve informations actively and have duty of deciding whether a source is reliable. From this, netizens can recognize that the basic purpose of censorship on the internet is just to help netizen's self-decision(whether a source is reliable)and they have own ability to decide it.(Recent governments and media have misused their power that disturb netizen's self-decision.)
Second, internet censorship limits 'netizen's right to know'. Most import part of netizen's right is 'right to know'. Most popular and reliable examples that show problems of limiting netizen's right to know is 'China's internet censorship'. As a result, it made conflict between China and Google. And most seriously, it limited not only netizen's informations but their thinking and basic rights. Also it affected to China's refutation(many external media and journalists criticise China's internet censorship system). In addition, internet censorship occur an side effect, 'Streisand effect' that makes unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It isn't the purpose of censoring internet hard, but as an side effect, it expand netizen's exposure extent on internet informations.
Third, internet censorship ruins 'netizen's freedom'. There are an internet declaration and laws confirm that internet must ensure netizen's freedom. In addition, there are lots of experts' opinion that ask whether internet access a netizen's right to be free. Netizens are basically ensured their right to be free. In the middle of information revolution, the fact that netizens still in the censor by whom is contradictory. Not just thakful to lots of information and Interactive communication, netizens have to consider whether they are enjoying real and enough freedom on the internet.
Recently, many major issues related to media and internet make discussions about my argument. There are some people who refute my argument.
Some can say that internet censorship protects netizens from toxic informations. However, as I mentioned, netizens have their own ability to decide whether a source is harm and reliable, even childrens can get this ability by learning. In addition, if hard(or over) censorship on the internet, it will make lack of netizen's self-decision and control conversely. Seriously, it will occur lots of problems occured by anonymity. These problems will be the results of lack of netizen's self-decision and control.
Others also can refute my argument as saying that recent netizens are enjoying enough freedom. However, as we can know through major issues as 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' and 'issue of Yoo byung eun', most netizens recognized lack of informations and one-biased information which are the results of censorship. It seems like recent netizens are enjoying their freedom enough, but it's just resulf of adaptation in censorship on the internet. Netizens have to be sensetive to their real freedom and rights.
Most people, especially netizens are seem sensetive to lots of issues as 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' and 'issue of Yoo byung eun'. However, that's only when the issues is major and become popular. This pattern is common life around netizens, but they have to be sensitive to this pattern. Netizens have to recognize basic purpose of internet censorship and netizen's duty of deciding actively about issues. Also they should recognize internet censorship ruins 'netizen's right to know' and 'netizen's freedom'.
Those who disagree with my argument can refute as recent netizens don't need more freedom and they are ensured their basic rights. However, those are the results of adaption in internet censorship. Most netizens feel riskness of hard and over internet censorship only when the major issues happen. However, netizens have to sensitive on their recent situation. In the middle of information revolution, it's weird and contradictory that netizens still in the limits of their right to know and to be free.
Netizens have their duty and ability to decide lots of sources' reliability and harmness. If censorship continue on the internet as now, it only makes netizens fool. Before expriencing the side effect as 'Streisand effect', netizen have to recognize that they have to get out of censorship on the internet themselves.
2014년 10월 26일 일요일
Conclusion
Conclusion
Most people, especially netizens are seem sensetive to lots of issues as '세월호 사건' and '유병언 사건'. However, that's only when the issues are major and become popular. This pattern is common life around netizens, but they have to be sensitive to this pattern. Netizens have to recognize basic purpose of internet censorship and netizen's duty of deciding actively about issues. Also they should recognize internet censorship ruins 'netizen's right to know' and 'netizen's freedom'.
Those who disagree with my argument can refute as recent netizens don't need more freedom and they are ensured their basic rights. However, those are the results of adaption in internet censorship. Most netizens feel riskness of hard and over internet censorship only when the major issues happen. However, netizens have to sensitive on their recent situation. In the middle of information revolution, it's weird and contradictory that netizens still in the limits of their right to know and to be free.
Netizens have their duty and ability to decide lots of sources' reliability and harmness. If censorship continue on the internet as now, it only makes netizens fool. Before expriencing the side effect as 'Streisand effect', netizen have to recognize that they have to get out of censorship on the internet themselves.
Most people, especially netizens are seem sensetive to lots of issues as '세월호 사건' and '유병언 사건'. However, that's only when the issues are major and become popular. This pattern is common life around netizens, but they have to be sensitive to this pattern. Netizens have to recognize basic purpose of internet censorship and netizen's duty of deciding actively about issues. Also they should recognize internet censorship ruins 'netizen's right to know' and 'netizen's freedom'.
Those who disagree with my argument can refute as recent netizens don't need more freedom and they are ensured their basic rights. However, those are the results of adaption in internet censorship. Most netizens feel riskness of hard and over internet censorship only when the major issues happen. However, netizens have to sensitive on their recent situation. In the middle of information revolution, it's weird and contradictory that netizens still in the limits of their right to know and to be free.
Netizens have their duty and ability to decide lots of sources' reliability and harmness. If censorship continue on the internet as now, it only makes netizens fool. Before expriencing the side effect as 'Streisand effect', netizen have to recognize that they have to get out of censorship on the internet themselves.
Refutation and Concession
1. What is my thesis?
Censorship is not necessary on the internet.
2. What is the opposite position?
In some cases, censorship is needed on the internet.
3. What arguments can I anticipate?
a) internet censorship protects netizens from toxic informations.
b) recent netizens are enjoying enough freedom
4. How will I counter those arguments?
a) even childrens, they have own ability to decide whether a source is harm or not.
result - problems occured by anonymity(lack of self-decision and control)
b) In major issues as I mentiond('세월호 사건' and '유병언 사건'), most netizen recognized lack of informations and one-biased information which are the results of censorship.
My Refutation and Concession
Recently, many major issues related to media and internet make discussions about my argument. There are some people who refute my argument.
Some can say that internet censorship protects netizens from toxic informations. However, as I mentioned, netizens have their own ability to decide whether a source is harm and reliable, even childrens can get this ability by learning. In addition, if hard(or over) censorship on the internet, it will make lack of netizen's self-decision and control conversely. Seriously, it will occur lots of problems occured by anonymity. These problems will be the results of lack of netizen's self-decision and control.
Others also can refute my argument as saying that recent netizens are enjoying enough freedom. However, as we can know through major issues as '세월호 사건' and '유병언 사건', most netizens recognized lack of informations and one-biased information which are the results of censorship. It seems like recent netizens are enjoying their freedom enough, but it's just resulf of adaptation in censorship on the internet. Netizens have to be sensetive to their real freedom and rights.
Censorship is not necessary on the internet.
2. What is the opposite position?
In some cases, censorship is needed on the internet.
3. What arguments can I anticipate?
a) internet censorship protects netizens from toxic informations.
b) recent netizens are enjoying enough freedom
4. How will I counter those arguments?
a) even childrens, they have own ability to decide whether a source is harm or not.
result - problems occured by anonymity(lack of self-decision and control)
b) In major issues as I mentiond('세월호 사건' and '유병언 사건'), most netizen recognized lack of informations and one-biased information which are the results of censorship.
My Refutation and Concession
Recently, many major issues related to media and internet make discussions about my argument. There are some people who refute my argument.
Some can say that internet censorship protects netizens from toxic informations. However, as I mentioned, netizens have their own ability to decide whether a source is harm and reliable, even childrens can get this ability by learning. In addition, if hard(or over) censorship on the internet, it will make lack of netizen's self-decision and control conversely. Seriously, it will occur lots of problems occured by anonymity. These problems will be the results of lack of netizen's self-decision and control.
Others also can refute my argument as saying that recent netizens are enjoying enough freedom. However, as we can know through major issues as '세월호 사건' and '유병언 사건', most netizens recognized lack of informations and one-biased information which are the results of censorship. It seems like recent netizens are enjoying their freedom enough, but it's just resulf of adaptation in censorship on the internet. Netizens have to be sensetive to their real freedom and rights.
The confirmation
1. What is my thesis?
Censorship is not necessary on the internet.
2. What types of source am I using to defend my thesis?
I am using expert opinions and relevant examples from news and relevant declarations.
3. Are my arguments mostly based on evidence, logic or emotion?
There are recent issues and some opinions from experts that argue like me. However, my argument is little weak at logical evidences.
My Confirmation
It's hard to find logical evidences that support my argument. Therefore, I'll use expert opinions and relevant examples from news and also relevant declarations.
First, to decide whether internet censorship is necessary or not, people have to consider the basic purpose of censorship on the internet and netizen's duty of deciding actively about issues. Especially netizens have their duty of deciding whether a source is reliable. We already know that through 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' and 'issue of Yoo byung eun' that were also issued because of the media's relibility. In this situation, Korean government censor the internet, also media regarding as citizens as fool who can't decide whether informations about those issues are reliable or not. Therefore, as the result, people could reconsider their duty to decide whether a source is reliable. In addition, there is a also an example that show netizens can recieve informations actively and have duty of deciding whether a source is reliable or not. From this, netizens can recognize that the basic purpose of censorship on the internet is to help netizen's self-decision whether a source is reliable and they have own ability to decide it.(Recent governments and media have misuse their power that disturb netizen's self-decision.)
Second, internet censorship limits 'netizen's right to know'. Most import part of netizen's right is 'right to know'. Most popular and reliable example that show problems of limiting netizen's right to know is 'China's internet censorship'. As a result, it made conflict between China and Google. And most seriously, it limited not only netizen's informations but their thinking and basic rights. Also it affected to China's refutation(many external media and journalists criticise China's internet censorship system). In addition, internet censorship occur an side effect, 'Streisand effect' that makes unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It isn't the purpose of censoring internet hard, but as an side effect, it expand netizen's exposure extent on internet informations.
Third, internet censorship ruins 'netizen's freedom'. There are an internet declaration and laws confirm that internet must ensure netizen's freedom. In addition, there are lots of experts' opinion that ask whether internet access a netizen's right to be free. Netizens are basically ensured their right to be free. In the middle of information revolution, the fact that netizens still in the censor by whom is contradictory. Not just thakful to lots of information and Interactive communication, netizens have to consider whether they are enjoying real and enough freedom on the internet.
Censorship is not necessary on the internet.
2. What types of source am I using to defend my thesis?
I am using expert opinions and relevant examples from news and relevant declarations.
3. Are my arguments mostly based on evidence, logic or emotion?
There are recent issues and some opinions from experts that argue like me. However, my argument is little weak at logical evidences.
My Confirmation
It's hard to find logical evidences that support my argument. Therefore, I'll use expert opinions and relevant examples from news and also relevant declarations.
First, to decide whether internet censorship is necessary or not, people have to consider the basic purpose of censorship on the internet and netizen's duty of deciding actively about issues. Especially netizens have their duty of deciding whether a source is reliable. We already know that through 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' and 'issue of Yoo byung eun' that were also issued because of the media's relibility. In this situation, Korean government censor the internet, also media regarding as citizens as fool who can't decide whether informations about those issues are reliable or not. Therefore, as the result, people could reconsider their duty to decide whether a source is reliable. In addition, there is a also an example that show netizens can recieve informations actively and have duty of deciding whether a source is reliable or not. From this, netizens can recognize that the basic purpose of censorship on the internet is to help netizen's self-decision whether a source is reliable and they have own ability to decide it.(Recent governments and media have misuse their power that disturb netizen's self-decision.)
Second, internet censorship limits 'netizen's right to know'. Most import part of netizen's right is 'right to know'. Most popular and reliable example that show problems of limiting netizen's right to know is 'China's internet censorship'. As a result, it made conflict between China and Google. And most seriously, it limited not only netizen's informations but their thinking and basic rights. Also it affected to China's refutation(many external media and journalists criticise China's internet censorship system). In addition, internet censorship occur an side effect, 'Streisand effect' that makes unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet. It isn't the purpose of censoring internet hard, but as an side effect, it expand netizen's exposure extent on internet informations.
Third, internet censorship ruins 'netizen's freedom'. There are an internet declaration and laws confirm that internet must ensure netizen's freedom. In addition, there are lots of experts' opinion that ask whether internet access a netizen's right to be free. Netizens are basically ensured their right to be free. In the middle of information revolution, the fact that netizens still in the censor by whom is contradictory. Not just thakful to lots of information and Interactive communication, netizens have to consider whether they are enjoying real and enough freedom on the internet.
The narration
My persuasive argument thesis is : Censorship is not necessary on the internet.
1. What do people already know about my topic?
Everyone knows that censorship is always around our living. Recently, through '세월호사건', Korean often recognize government's censorship on the media. Korean government misreported outline of the issue and disappeared and losses. Media act as citizens are fool and soon citizens are mad for that. As the result of media censorship, citizens didn't trust the issue of '유병언 사건' - 유병언 is a person related to '세월호 사건' and has reponsibility of the issue. In addition, '유병언 사건' is that media and government reported the hot issued person, 유병언 is dead. However, citizens didn't believe that. - So, recent citizens, especially netizens are considering whether censorship on the media, especially on the internet is necessary or not.
2. What research has already been done about my topic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship
Based on this souce, I made own definition of censorship and I could know more information about censorship and specific examples of each countries' status of cencorship.
http://chineseculture.about.com/od/mediainchina/a/Internet-Censorship-in-China.htm
http://chineseculture.about.com/od/businesseconomy/a/China-Internet-Sector-What-You-Need-To-Know.htm
http://www.hrichina.org/en/content/3244
Internet censorship in China is very oppressive and China should control their oppressive internet censorship for Chinese netizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-internet-censorship-28293.html
Status after internet censorship is enforced.
3. What are the implications of my argument?
If people ignore me, we can't get out of the censorship. We won't enjoy our right to enjoy free on the internet and government use their power of censorship to discover lots of facts related to the government. It will make people just fool on the internet.
My Narration
Through the experience of issues which are '세월호 사건' and '유병언 사건', especially Korean could recognize riskiness of censorship on the internet. As the result, people trying to recognize and decide whether the censorship is necessary on the internet.
Internet censorship in China is very opperssive, so it's most popular example of internet censorship. From China's internet censorship, not only Korean but also people all around the world already knew the riskiness of the internet censorship. Then, we have to know that internet censorship makes another side effect and also makes people fool. Streisand effect is one of that and if people ignore the riskiness of internet censorship, they won't enjoy their freedom anymore.
In addition, we have to be conative against internet censorship around us. Therefore, from now on I will explain reasons why internet censorship is not necessary.
1. What do people already know about my topic?
Everyone knows that censorship is always around our living. Recently, through '세월호사건', Korean often recognize government's censorship on the media. Korean government misreported outline of the issue and disappeared and losses. Media act as citizens are fool and soon citizens are mad for that. As the result of media censorship, citizens didn't trust the issue of '유병언 사건' - 유병언 is a person related to '세월호 사건' and has reponsibility of the issue. In addition, '유병언 사건' is that media and government reported the hot issued person, 유병언 is dead. However, citizens didn't believe that. - So, recent citizens, especially netizens are considering whether censorship on the media, especially on the internet is necessary or not.
2. What research has already been done about my topic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship
Based on this souce, I made own definition of censorship and I could know more information about censorship and specific examples of each countries' status of cencorship.
http://chineseculture.about.com/od/mediainchina/a/Internet-Censorship-in-China.htm
http://chineseculture.about.com/od/businesseconomy/a/China-Internet-Sector-What-You-Need-To-Know.htm
http://www.hrichina.org/en/content/3244
Internet censorship in China is very oppressive and China should control their oppressive internet censorship for Chinese netizens.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/disadvantages-internet-censorship-28293.html
Status after internet censorship is enforced.
3. What are the implications of my argument?
If people ignore me, we can't get out of the censorship. We won't enjoy our right to enjoy free on the internet and government use their power of censorship to discover lots of facts related to the government. It will make people just fool on the internet.
My Narration
Through the experience of issues which are '세월호 사건' and '유병언 사건', especially Korean could recognize riskiness of censorship on the internet. As the result, people trying to recognize and decide whether the censorship is necessary on the internet.
Internet censorship in China is very opperssive, so it's most popular example of internet censorship. From China's internet censorship, not only Korean but also people all around the world already knew the riskiness of the internet censorship. Then, we have to know that internet censorship makes another side effect and also makes people fool. Streisand effect is one of that and if people ignore the riskiness of internet censorship, they won't enjoy their freedom anymore.
In addition, we have to be conative against internet censorship around us. Therefore, from now on I will explain reasons why internet censorship is not necessary.
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)