Should the government control the Internet? Or Internet content?
Debate Rounds (2)
Second, those people who express their opinions on different forums in a very impolite way. Of course, everyone can have their own opinion and they have the right to say it, but they could say it nicer. If government will control by, for example, blocking the account, then perhaps people would behave more politely.
That are my reasons why I think the government should control the Internet.
You are astute in recognizing that children are using the internet on a broad level today, but truth is I suspect that those children have good and decent parents whom have parental controls in place to gauge where a child may go on the internet and what a child may view and/or participate in. Unfortunately that child becomes a teenager and is eventually given full access to world wide web, it is at this time that misfortune and the teenager meet, although I have to support that those cases are few and far between. However, I do recognize that Chris Hanson has delivered to the public arena a good visual of how both teenagers and pedophiles are misusing a good thing.
I have to disagree with you that the government should be involved in the regulation of the internet on any level, if that were to happen yet another civil right will be impeded and once again we will have controversy.
Then, children go to this sites not because they want to, but accidentally. You can see a lot of adverts which are not for children. And most of the time it opens itself. It is not normal, especially nowadays when even 5 years old child can go on the Internet.
Thanks for tonight's debate.
http://mises.org...), it is simply too big. However it would be possible to censor what is allowed on the Internet, but that in itself would be task of great effort, although I do understand that China, Japan, and Ireland (I think, no reference) have attempted to do just that. And too, what you're representing is a clear and concise breach of the First Amendment, the right to free speech. The government cannot control free speech.
There is a great deal of effort put into attempting to censor and/or study what people write, some of these things often produce red flags to our government, but truth is those places on the Internet were already taboo, and generally we know it (ie. Anarchist Cook Book). However these are sites that the individual would have to know about first and then secondly have to seek out. I do support that often a parent or some other adult may very well be at the computer, under his/her own login and leave the computer, thus making it easy for a child to find things, but the child would have to know what to look for.
In the United States the computer manufacturers have made it easy to control and censor what anyone can see on a computer by installation of options directly on the computer. They are extremely difficult to "get around," if you don't believe check your own. And too, most of the web servers have options in place that can restrain individuals (ie. children) from accessing certain areas on the Internet. It's very easy to do and common practice amongst parents. Please consider that at five years of age a child is just beginning to understand his As, Bs, and Cs, it is unlikely that a conglomeration of any letters haphazardly banged into the address bar would produce porn, nor any other vile site.
I have been using a computer for exactly thirty-three years, I have yet to accidentally go anywhere on the Internet that I didn't choose to go. And I have never seen a site open up on it's on, there has to be some sort of attention given to it. I have seen advertisements open on their own, but generally they are related to whatever search the individual is attempting, check this on your own. I would consider housecleaning products not for children but in reality every "child safe" site any child may visit will produce advertisements, it like the television thrives on this income.
Finally, it is a bit ludicrous to conceive that any company, organization, or website would invest the efforts into censoring what is said in an open forum to any individual that chooses to visit the site. Some of them do have guidelines in place, but as facebook, myspace, and craigslist have taught us they usually serve no purpose, people will get around them. The video that you referenced about Muhammad I suppose did in fact create a wave of unrest, however and more to the core of the situation, there are ideals in play that we (the general public) have no idea exist. I assure you that it was not the mere release of a trailer on a documentary that provoked the reaction that was publicized nationwide, there are things that even you and I cannot debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ObiWan 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro barely offered any cohesive arguments. Con's points about private ownership and the immensity of the internet in themselves were enough to win the arguments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.