Why censorship is bad

We would not be able to prevent ourselves from being killed because murder is legal. As is seen in this example, one reason the society robs people of some freedom is because it helps to provide people a more comfortable place to live.

A small percentage of users post conspicuous posts, graphic material, and infringing copyright links. Freedom of speech and press will be restricted by the government. To a point where people would be scared to express themselves, or spread information for they might be punished.

Anonymity permits an individual to be contentious, to take disagreeable positions on unpredictable issues, and to attempt to change social order. This freedom of speech an Therefore, the Internet society will be at risk of missing very significant information that may concern their lives. Moreover, the world as a whole will miss information that is vital since some of the anonymous people act as watchdogs in the society. Conclusion Anonymity must be allowed to certain levels.

For people who already use social media, they have to use social media wisely to avoid bad or negative things happen to their real life. If possible, we have to avoid bullying other people in social media. So, no one bullying and get bullied, and no one suicide because of. In conclusion, people should not condone the philosophy of moral relativism because it allows people to freely interpret the meaning of right and wrong, makes people lose self-control, and conditions our society to be subjective.

Although being able to freely express yourself of your own morals is a good thing, we should learn to contain it more instead of subjecting it towards others and society. Losing self-control brings lives apart from others and not learning how to control it is a big risk.

Open Document. Essay Sample Check Writing Quality. Censorship is detrimental to society. Censorship is the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc. Which parts are considered unacceptable, depends entirely on the person viewing them. One person may censor violence, nudity, and certain types of language on television, while another may block the comments section on their social media page. Such people are criminals and can be dealt with accordingly, and the people have a right to know what was being said to influence their peers, so that they can prepare themselves for whatever onslaught may occur.

To what extent should censorship be allowed? In the recent Tianjin chemical disaster, for example, the State placed a greater emphasis on the blocking of news reports and media than on clearing the damage and saving lives. Local media were instructed to keep silent about the disaster for 10 hours, whereas web censors stifled social media reports. The flagrant abuse of authority and irresponsibility of the State manifested itself in the mismanagement and stubbornness in dealing with the disaster.

Evidently, given the State's inherent tendency to protect its interests, such as to cling onto power and inhibit dissent, censorship clearly should not be practiced out of the justifiable concern that States will abuse their power.

This fundamental liberty to express, read or access any form of information is under direct threat due to censorship. However, this should not mean that an individual should be restricted in what material he chooses to access. Are human beings not each unique to their own views, opinions and thoughts? Overcoming censorship was not just a victory for Egypt, but for the universal right that is liberty. Therefore, from the perspective of the individual, censorship is morally wrong and unnecessary as it restricts the right for individual expression.

The platform should normally provide you with one, though most of the time you do not get a very precise reason. If you disagree with the vague reasoning, there is an appeals process, but it is rare to get a ban overturned.

And taking a case to court is slow and expensive. And most of the time, you are not sure what to challenge except for the fact you were being censored.

This can be a problem if you have built up a large following or if you rely on your social media presence for your business. And you can bet that this gets abused in some countries, where political rivals manage to get their opponents banned or their content removed. And these are backed up by fines. But this incentivises Big Tech to err on the side of caution and censor legitimate free speech.

And most of what we are allowed to say, spread or watch on social media is decided by Big Tech companies themselves. Several years ago, the EU drew up a code of conduct together with Big Tech and social media platforms.

But that remains voluntary and all the responsibility lies with Big Tech. The solution is for governments and the EU to change the rules so that they protect us against censorship.

It should be our elected representatives, acting in the interests of the public, who write the laws about behaviour in the online world, not companies, acting in the interests of shareholders.

Platforms make huge profits. And more of this income should be ploughed into hiring more staff to review decisions to block or take down content or ban users. It should always be possible for an individual to get a decision checked promptly by a human.

On top of this, individuals should be able to appeal to the courts quickly and cheaply. This system could also be funded through taxation on big tech platforms. Internet platforms have become the equivalent of our town squares, hosting much of our public debate. It may be OK for tech companies to make money from the services they provide. But these platforms have become public spaces that have an impact on our society and our democracies.

When Big Tech draws up its own rulebook, it means that our speech and our democracy is being governed by an unelected tech firm motivated primarily profit. Liberties Liberties.