There has been much discussion in recent year of the Internet’s potential to negatively impact its users, leading some to believe the availability of more inaccurate, immoral or unsafe content should be government-controlled. While I agree vulnerable groups in society must be protected from such sources, I also believe it essential that governments protect the public’s free access to information.
Governmental censorship of harmful content would safeguard the vulnerable online, most notably children and the young, who are generally more impressionable. However, across-the-board restrictions may be seen as dictatorial as many view it to be the responsibility of parents and guardians to oversee the internet usage of those in their care. For example, the implementation of parental control settings for streaming platforms, which allows those in charge to make a decision, is arguably more effective than an outright ban on certain websites.
Conversely, it is almost impossible for adults to control all their children’s online navigation, meaning nationwide bans on certain content may have a role to play. While parents are able to impose controls at home, teenagers have independent access via mobile devices. The proliferation of social networks over the last few years means young people view and share links, videos and comments from millions of unknown and potentially harmful sources on a daily basis. Were some of these to be banned by the authorities, children would not be affected by them and parents could have peace of mind. That said, the question of who would choose those sites and based on what criteria remains moot.
In conclusion, although some degree of censorship may have merits, I believe a balance is essential. The definition of harmful or unsuitable content is not black and white and, although some sources of racist or extreme fascist nature should arguably be banned, it is essential for our freedom and rights that we have some say in deciding what is suitable in moulding the outlook of the next generation.