1- discussion post 300 words about:
What are the pros and cons of content labeling for the purposes of filtering – if it is mandated by government, would that be considered “forced speech”? Many US citizens are objecting to the government mandating the wearing of facemasks. Do you think that governments requiring the wearing of facemasks to protect public health is an example of “forced speech?” How effective is government controlled censorship on the Internet?
This is the first student’s discussion you have to reply in 100 words:
Forced speech may also be known as compelled speech. It comes up with a fundamental assumption that the government cannot constrain an individual or group to assist a certain feeling or expression. Content filtering technologies have molted a lot of discussion opposing and debate. Content filtering, therefore, has various advantages and disadvantages. Schools and institutions find it beneficial by bringing about a content filtering mean to solve problems on the computer devices whereby the aid financially. This will assist them in yielding assent with the CIPA and be eligible for federal allocation of funds for technology intention. Content filtering also helps reduce the total amount of malware that a supporter accidentally installed in one machine or device. The other hand is that content filtering may be a disadvantage because the technology is breached since it frequently blocks available material that could support and be helpful to the educational sectors.
The government requiring the wearing of facemasks to protect public health is considered a forced speech to slow the spread of diseases such as COVID 19. The government and the disease control and prevention also encourage using a piece of cloth face and maintaining social distance. Other states and governments mandate the usage of facemasks, especially in public areas such as bus stations. Therefore, the government should set fines for those who do not put on their face masks; hence citizens will use the facemask to avoid paying the required fine.
Internet censorship is defined as the suppression or dictation of what is accessed, issuing or even seeing or viewing on the computer program whereby the roles and regulations govern them. The government is effective since it controls the internet. It can block various IP addresses of the telecommunication they are not interested in or do not like.
This is the second student’s discussion you have to reply in 100 words:
Internet censorship is the control of information that can be viewed by the public on the internet, and can be carried out by governments, institutions, and private organizations. Censored content can include copyrighted information, harmful, or sensitive content. The purpose of internet censorship is to stop people from accessing copyrighted information, to keep people from viewing harmful or sensitive content, to control internet-related crime, and to monitor people on the internet. While we typically think of internet censorship as being controlled by governments, it is commonly used by other organizations like internet service providers to limit our access to certain sites.
Internet censorship in the U.S is among the least controlled in the world. This is mainly due to the fact that most online activity is protected by First Amendment rights. There is still some surveillance and control when it comes to publishing certain content that may contain libel, child pornography, and intellectual property. While the Internet in the U.S. isn’t highly censored, it is highly regulated, which leads to a lot of self-censorship in America.
Internet censorship has its advantages when used with the best of intentions. First of all, it creates common-sense limits. There’s a ton of content on Facebook and Twitter platforms that no one should ever see, and the concept of Internet censorship can start a constructive conversation about it. Secondly, it can stop fake news on these social media platforms. If more content was closely monitored, it could cut down on mass amounts of fraudulent information including fake news and false advertising. It can also curb access to harmful activities like sex trafficking, child pornography, and illicit drugs. Lastly, there will be less identity theft when we use these platforms. There are some big disadvantages to Internet censorship that affect the way people access information. First of all, it can restrict too much information which real information is blocked along with fake information. Secondly, it can censor free speech. Internet censorship not only limits the content you can access, but potentially the content you post on platforms as well.
Works Cited
Poetker, Bridget. “How Internet Censorship Affects You.” G2. 2019. com/articles/internet-censorship” title=”https://www.g2.com/articles/internet-censorship”>https://www.g2.com/articles/internet-censorship
This is the third student’s discussion you have to reply in 100 words:
I believe people get really hang up on the idea of freedom. They want to be free but forget that rights also come with responsibilities. You have the right to buy a fire weapon, but this right is regulated by the procedures you need to follow to purchase and carry a fire weapon, and also there are penalties for how you use weapons. Freedom is regulated. When we add regulation, it can benefit everyone.
You have the right to remain silent when undergoing police questioning, but this protection might not hold if a life is in danger, even for professionals when working with patients, if the given information prevents death or serious injury, generally, client confidentiality does not apply. Your expression is regulated too. This regulation will benefit everyone.
Following this idea of freedom and regulation, I believe that content labeling has its benefits and helps certain groups of users in filtering and protecting or blocking undesired content. I do not believe it to be a forced speech because if you are expressing yourself, you are already speaking, or expressing yourself, and just because you would add content labeling does not mean you are forced to speak (you are already doing it even without the content filtering). If content filtering can benefit certain users, why not add that.
My problem with something as the not wearing mask movement is the reason behind it. People do not want to wear masks for ignorance and misleading information, users read that Covid is not real or it is not really bad, and defend the idea without pursuing more reliable sources.
This week, on Ars Technica, a news article reviewed how fake news could have pushed for Trump’s winning election by an army of fake news websites. That might be happening with covid and other content subjects.
What if a website labeled their source of information, and we could verify it. The article mentioned that the fake news websites would cite each other and have different servers which could not be linked or traced back to each other. If we could add content labeling/filtering, that could show a weird pattern of back and forth sources from the same pool of websites which could be a red flag.
The government could help but there are certain boundaries that should not be crossed, so the internet can still be free, but freedom can be regulated to a certain point, or otherwise, we are in a bubble and cannot see outside as in some countries, or people can abuse of their freedom.
Content labeled websites could improve users’ experience, and create a better environment. We don’t see it but there is this effect where sometimes a feature is added to a product for accessibility, but later it benefits everyone. A lot of inclusive design in the world has been made for disabled people that later helped improve everyone’s experience in general. For example, crosswalk signals for pedestrians were designed for blind and deaf users, but now it helps drivers, and any person trying to cross the street. Same for ramps in buildings, that helps not just wheelchair users, but any person with a temporary or situational condition (someone with a broken leg or a delivery driver stacking boxes in a cart).
References:
Miranda Rights Organization. Right to Remain Silent. Available at http://www.mirandarights.org/righttoremainsilent.html#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20the,avoid%20making%20self%2Dincriminating%20statements.&text=The%20Miranda%20Warning%20is%20used,after%20being%20placed%20under%20arrest
Schwartzbach, Micah (2021). The Attorney-Client Privilege. Nolo. Available at com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-client-privilege.html” title=”https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-client-privilege.html”>https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-client-privilege.html
Sharma, Ax (October 14, 2021). “Hacker X”—the American who built a pro-Trump fake news empire—unmasks himself. Ars Technica. Available at com/information-technology/2021/10/hacker-x-the-american-who-built-a-pro-trump-fake-news-empire-unmasks-himself/” title=”https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/10/hacker-x-the-american-who-built-a-pro-trump-fake-news-empire-unmasks-himself/”>https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/10/hacker-x-the-american-who-built-a-pro-trump-fake-news-empire-unmasks-himself/
0 comments