2014년 11월 16일 일요일

Second Draft

 
Censorship on the internet is not necessary on the internet


 Every day's chatter are coming from the internet news or issues. People use the internet naturally without considering about 'censorship on the internet.' However, after the 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' -it is recent Korean issue that about 300 people who took a ship, Sewol, were sunk into ocean. After that happened, Korean government censored media, so media didn't report government's fault in that accident- 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 that are 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' and 'issue of Yoo Byung un',-it is recent issue that media reported that Yoo Byung un who is related to the 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' is died. However, people didn't believe it and they are finding evidences which indicate he is alive. People's distrust against the government and media is because of the issue of 'Sinkin of the MV Sewol- especially Korean could recognize riskiness of censorship on the internet. As a result, people trying to recognize and decide whether the censorship is necessary on the internet. 
 
Internet censorship in China is very oppressive, 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- it makes unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet- is one of that. Therefore, 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 un' that were also issued because of the media's reliability. In this situation, Korean government censored the internet. Also media regarded citizens as fool who can't decide whether information about those issues are reliable or not. Therefore, as a result, people could reconsider their duty to decide whether a source is reliable. In addition, there is an example-one person revealed a wrong thing through SNS, and then lots of people could know that problem-that shows netizens can receive information actively and have a 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 the 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 information but their thinking and basic rights. Also, it affected to China's reputation(many external media and journalists criticise China's internet censorship system). In addition, internet censorship occurs a 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 a side effect, it expand netizen's exposure extent on internet information.

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 ensured their right to be free. In the middle of the information revolution, the fact that netizens still in the censor by whom is contradictory. Not just thankful 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 information. However, as I mentioned, netizens have their 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 a lack of netizen's self-decision and control conversely. Seriously, it will occur lots of problems occurred 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, we can know through major issues as 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' and 'issue of Yoo Byung un'. Most netizens recognized lack of information and one-biased information which are the results of censorship. It seems like recent netizens are enjoying their freedom enough, but it's just result of adaptation in censorship on the internet. Netizens have to be sensitive to their real freedom and rights.


 Most people, especially netizens are seemed sensitive to lots of issues as 'Sinking of the MV Sewol' and 'issue of Yoo Byung un'. However, that's when the issues is major and become popular. This pattern is a common life around netizens, but they have to be sensitive to this pattern. Netizens have to recognize the 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. Also, they are ensured their basic rights. However, those are the results of adoption on internet censorship. Most netizens feel riskiness 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 harmless. If censorship continue on the internet as now, it only makes netizens fool. Before experiencing the side effect as 'Streisand effect', netizen have to recognize that they have to get out of censorship on the internet themselves.

 

Bibliography
 
작성자: 시간:
라벨:

댓글 없음:

댓글 쓰기

피드 구독하기: 댓글 (Atom)