link to the article:http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/1596176/more-governments-censoring-internet
The new media is an incredibly powerful article. In this article, the author talks about how powerful the Internet, which is an important part of CMC (Computer Mediated Communication), is and many countries in the world are still depriving their own citizens the rights to access any websites in the world.
I definitely agree with the author about how powerful the Internet has become. The Internet, unlike the mass media, is able to achieve convergence by making voice, video and data into common digital formats and combining two way interactive capability. For instance, now a simple video taken on a camcorder can easily be digitalized and uploaded into the computer and later the Internet. Moreover, two way interactive capability is achieved if you upload the video or data on social networks such as Twitter, Myspace, Facebook and people get to comment and provide feedback. People can access this from everywhere, regardless of their location, as long as they are connected to the web.
This can be a really powerful and completely unstoppable tool. As more and more people view the video, one can be easily influenced by the comments of the others. Moreover, with the easy access of information, information can be transmitted quickly to almost anyone. This is the reason why so many countries are actively censorship contents online, because they do not want people to know information that will be detrimental or undermining to the country's policies.
So regarding this, if you were to ask me if I agree the Internet has to be regulated, I believe it has to be to a certain extent. Websites and news articles that promote racial and religious hatred have to be sieved out from our scope of attention. People's perceptions can be influenced very easily and these websites can alter their values and beliefs. Moreover, the no-boundaries access can potentially allow foreign influence to undermine your country directly. I understand that many people are upset about China censoring many websites but there is always a risk that information that is potential harmful to the country will enter the country and cause conflicts within the country. In the West, many people are sympathetic to the cause independence cause of the Tibetans. There are many websites that are set up dedicating to this. If these websites are allowed to enter the web premises of China, this will stir up more negative feelings towards the government and more positive feelings towards Tibert. The results? More conflicts and disarray in the country. Let's put these into another perspective. What if there are many foreign websites that are dedicated to the Independence of Texas, do you think that the US, which has claimed to be a strong supporter of free speech, will allow these websites into the American cyberspace?
The bottom line is that due to the ability of convergence, the Internet is a powerful tool...too powerful that things have to be done to limit its effects. Censorship needs to be there to protect the interests of the country and to prevent potential conflicts. I am a strong supporter of it. Are you?
Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree on this one. I am not exactly a freedom of speech activist, but to me censoring the internet goes against the very principles of its creation in the first place: a global network without boundaries and barriers. With regards to your statement on the independence of Texas, perhaps you can try googling "secession of California", and gain an understanding on how that's not exactly accurate.
ReplyDeleteTo be frank, I am not surprised if many will share similar ideas as you do. In Singapore, we acknowledge, understand and respect the controls in place within the country's system. The "light touch" censorship on the internet by MDA may thus seem to be perfectly reasonable. However, I think the same "light touch censorship" concept in America will meet with stiff opposition. Over there, the citizens embrace their Constitution-granted rights fiercely and the government cannot hope to silence the masses (check out the Watergate scandal...though it's abit dated). The First Amendment right of free speech leaves no exceptions, even when it comes to behavior in bad taste like picketing of military funerals (Fred Phelps and his church).
With regards to your concerns about "harmful information entering the country", it is precisely the argument which I am not convinced by. It is an argument which seems well meaning and insignificant, but can lead to more drastic consequences. Lets say I re-word it to "we need to prevent this harmful race of people from staying within the country"....doesn't that sound particularly familiar? These are subtle, seemingly well intentioned but absolutely sinister statements. The internet is a free agent, and you have to accept the good along with the bad. I believe that censorship never particularly serves its purpose anyway, particularly on the internet. Take for example, China's "Great Firewall". Check out those Chinese forums and see how seriously the Chinese citizens are taking it. Lets say if I restrict access to your favorite site content tomorrow, I am pretty sure you will find alternatives to it soon enough. The only thing censorship actually does is to prevent people from accidentally stumbling upon such content and having their opinions warped as a result...which I find quite unlikely.
Ultimately, what I believe in is that of self censorship. Face it, the internet contains billions and billions of sites. You wouldn't be browsing every single one of them. Hence, you should be the one having the authority to decide what you view and what you ignore.
Yes i agree with u cheong at the part where u mentioned that the internet has to be censored to a certain extent. Well, to be honest, the internet is like a graffiti wall. There is actually much trash information and many times, offensive and absolutely useless ones. No doubt, there are definitely existence of true, helpful info. But with the mixture, it does makes it harder and more confusing to execute researches on the internet.
ReplyDeleteAbout the china's censorship, I believed that china has a certain motive behind, and not just soley becuase they want to minimise the hatred feelings Tibet has on them.
ReplyDeleteChina has been following the Marxist ideology since Mao Zhe Dong took up the leadership role. Under the Marxist ideology, censorship was used to stop people's from jumping over to the democratic American. It was a selfish reason to start with. Moverover, censorship make people less knowledgable with respect to the happenings of the world. It's been proven through history.
With the high EQs and IQs of mankind now, censorship does not really have an effect on people. Even if we are being censored from the racist webpage, there will still be racism existing in a country. Thus, censorship perhaps is a way that the government wishes to convey to their people. They are trying to say,"I am the leader, I decide your fate and your path. Do NOt Challenge Me." Well, They succeeded!
Well, I guess different levels of censorship are required for people of different levels of maturity. For example, it is good to censor websites and shows that promote violence and other vices from (maybe say) 5 to 12 years old children. This is needed as they are kids at a vulnerable age where their mental growth is easily affected and shaped by events happening around them. However, an adult with more maturity will be able to decide for him/herself as to which web pages should be browsed.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of which age is suitable for censorship and which are not then largely depends on the culture and upbringing of the people in different countries. For example, in Asia, we all know that though it is increasingly true that people are becoming 'westernized', they are still to an extent 'conservative' about issues such as free speech, power and control. Hence, to which group should censorship be targeted largely depends on the type of people and government that are in place in different parts of the world.
@Chansey: Yes, it is up to the own will of the person to search beyond the contents that are censored but this often takes some efforts to achieve. If it is difficult and troublesome enough, there will be less people who will bother to try it.
ReplyDelete@John: In a particular school of psychology, it is believed that the child should be spoken with adult language straightaway. The child has to pick up these adult languages and styles anyway in the future and this will not impair the child's learning ability. So, why not just expose the child to the realities of being an adult but of course, parental guidance must be there.
Sorry, Cheong. I simply disagree with you of exposing the harsh realities of adult life to young children. Censorship has to be there. I am not even confident if parental guidance is adequate or is correctly implemented to guide the young children. It is most likely to be flawed and mislead the children. It is best to not let them know.
ReplyDeleteI agree that by executing censorship, may prevent potential conflicts. However, how much is enough? What if there is too much of censorship and children become too ignorant? Sometimes, when parent do not give the full information of some issues, the internet will be their answer. I am not skeptical about censorship, however I think it is futile as it is quite impossible to fully block out an information. Take gambling for example, you can gamble on ANYTHING if you really want to. Thus, you can find millions of ways in searching of the information you want on the most powerful tool, the internet.
ReplyDeleteHey!
ReplyDeleteYes i do think that censorship should be in place so that information can be regulated. I like the way which you describe what are the information that need and need not to be regulated. After all information is power in this knowledge-based society and certainly there ought to be some who post information on the web to deviant from the rest and to create chaos. As such certain amount of censorship should be beneficial to the society as a whole.
I do think that while information and comments can be powerful to influence an individual, it is the individual behavior to conform to the norm that is where the media can become so powerful. Like what you have mentioned in your post, the continuous comments on the same view may in turn influence an individual to believe that a certain view is correct and thus result in the spiral of silence effect.
Well i hope that people will learn to differentiate the information and not blindly accept whatever information that the media present. After all i do believe that readers are now longer passive and has become more active as time progressed. What do you think?
I agree with you that the Internet has become a very powerful tool, and with Facebook and Twitter etc, you can have access to personal lives and information about the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteI feel that censorship is important to an extent as you have said, because it can prevent conflicts among countries. However, I think the amount of censorship we have now has actually led us to become unaware of certain issues. Sensitive and negative topics are censored, and this can mislead people into thinking that such issues do not exist, and thus it can become a problem in the future. We may start thinking that everyone is happy with each other and the whole world is peaceful, but this is apparently not the case. Censorship of racial and religious hatred for example, merely sieves out these issues from our scope of attention, but it does not mean that these issues have stopped existing. What is needed is not censorship, but education on people's values and attitudes towards others.
To me, censorship should be removed for certain issues such that people will actually be aware of what is happening to the world and do something about it.
Definitely agree with you about how powerful the internet is. I think many people would say that they're headstrong and can make their own decisions, yet, i think that a lot of our decisions are influenced by those around us so the internet being such an important tool in our lives nowadays, would obviously be one of the most influential. Thus, the censorship of certain websites might be a good way in order to eliminate certain material that the govt might not agree with
ReplyDeletei agree that censorship is necessary. Yes, adults may complain that their freedom of speech is restricted or that they are being brainwashed. However, often they forget that the world as it is, in its 'raw' form is not suitable for children. I am not so sure if powerful is the correct word. But i will agree at what you are trying to get at. There needs to be regulation and limit. To protect those who are not ready.
ReplyDeleteJust my two kents worth.
I feel that internet bans on certain areas of the world wide web should be maintained. The internet is a massive source of knowledge and knowledge in the wrong hands would prove to be fatal. Censorship might be troublesome and restrictive, but in light of the greater good (national security), it is required.
ReplyDeleteThe World Wide Web is a very powerful tool to allow users to express their feelings and also a tool to influence others. I agree that Censorship is much needed on some contents to prevent children from been expose to unnecessary contents on the internet.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the censorship part as I am a strong believer in freedom of speech. True, the internet may be filled with all sort of stuffs and some may not be so nice but we should leave that to the user to filter and allow them to take in what they want and what they do not.
ReplyDeleteCensorship is only necessary to prevent the young from stumbling upon unsuitable content. In the case of CMC, this is not exactly possible because you'll end up blocking the site altogether. Parental control would serve better than censorship IMO because censorship is contributing to the constraints of communication, instead of helping to remove them. We would be taking a step back in communication instead of evolving to help break through these constraints if we advocated censorship, wouldn't we?
ReplyDeletei agree with candice,in addition throughout the years. The authority have been lifting the standards of Censorship because people do have their own ways and means to access censored article, which causes more social problems.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that the internet should be regulated. Indeed, the internet is a powerful tool. However, it is only powerful without the censoring of informations. People would then be able to research on different informations and views from different sources.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the internet should be regulated. information that promote hatred should be censored. This is to prevent unrest which can potentially destructive
ReplyDelete