The issue of heinous content on the internet has come to the fore in recent years. Indeed, new technologies are undergoing a transformation of far-reaching consequences. While it is widely held that the law keeps citizens under the state’s control, the reality is arguably that anonymity on the internet enables people to act under the radar. This essay will argue that information available on the internet is a pressing concern which demands action, even though some watchdogs are necessary to protect the freedom of speech.
Admittedly, there is a case to be made for the spread of heinous content online. Drawing on mountains of evidence, it becomes compellingly clear that the internet underpins the promotion of crimes. There is no denying that people benefit from impunity on the internet, due to anonymity, in order to share illegal content. This problem is not incidental but systemic, since virtual violence results in the spread of violence in our society. Such as Rotten.com, well-known criminal websites give rise to a threat to our security. Prohibiting these websites could avoid the diffusion of harmful ideologies and, finally, possible mass shootings or acts of terrorism, since some people are susceptible to violence. To fight these pressing issues, the government has to put the onus on violent websites in order to distribute responsibility and to prevent the spread of heinous content.
Beyond this prohibition, the most significant consideration is that we have to protect the freedom of speech in every circumstance. There is no shortage of examples illustrating the threat of intrusive political decisions to our democracy, such as the scandal of Cambridge Analytica, which has shown the impact of political manipulation throughout elections. Even though it remains important to frame websites and the public sphere, the private sphere has to be delimited in order to be protected from propaganda. The argument gains additional weight once we consider that the internet gives rise to critical thinking. Based on total freedom on social media, the freedom of speech is threatened since the government could possibly influence voters by insidiously using personal data in targeted advertisements, which promote biased points of view.
Taken together, these considerations point to an inescapable conclusion: we should find a balance between individual freedom and collective responsibility. The problem is too systemic to be addressed by goodwill alone. The question is no longer whether to act, but what we can do to limit illegal content without trespassing on our privacy.