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.