Submitted April 29, 2012, 7:22 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
WxecDu Hey, thanks for the article.Really looking forward to read more. Much obliged.
|
Submitted May 5, 2006, 3:34 AM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
Technically speaking, there already are limits set in place by programs, those being filters and passwords. However, anything on the internet is possible, and even filters can be bypassed.
I see the Internet as the world as a virtual entity. Everything about the internet has a part in real life as well. You could say that the internet is just like putting the world at your monitor. In life, your only limits to knowledge come down to things kept in secrecy, such as confidental government files. Anything you are allowed to know, you can go out and find. The internet is just a tool that means you may not have to go out to find what you're looking for.
It becomes very easy to use the internet, thus giving people easier access to information. It also makes it easier for others to give you incorrect or misleading information, or to find something that may not be proper for an indidual to see. The price of having information easier is the risk of finding information that could be hazardous to the user.
Dante describes this well in Inferno, warning the readers to be wary of his writing and the writings of others. The information he gives us is his view on hell, but to take his words as truth and follow his script blindly is a fool's game. Just as the reader must be careful of what he reads, the user of the internet must make sure that what he finds in his search for knowledge is not taken as truth immediately, and that great care must be given when finding information.
From a moral standpoint, I don't believe that anyone has the right to limit anyone else from a pursuit of knowledge in life, unless the agenda of that person is one of ill will. People are entitled to obtain knowledge, so obtaining it from the internet is no different. It's the users responsibility to use that information in the correct fashion, and just because one person uses it incorrectly, doesn't mean it should be banned for the rest of the world.
|
Submitted February 21, 2006, 6:05 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
The internet is an amazing source of information for students and everyone else; its freedom is essential to its function because although the accuracy of the information is never certain, the advantage of the tool is the abundance of information and the convenience of accessing it. Though unlimited freedom may be inappropriate, in the only conceivable situations in which information would necessarily need to remain private, there are already legal restrictions on making it public. Therefore, the internet's accessibility and freedom is necessary to its utility.
|
Submitted February 19, 2006, 8:01 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
Even thought internet can be very useful and nowadays is the principal source for research, studies, look for information, etc; it could also be very dangerous since you can fine on internet evil things, false information, things for adults that can be seen by children, etc. I think that every person has the right to express and put on internet everything they want; that is why I do not think that there should be limits on the internet. I think that every person has to put their own limits, be responsible of their own acts and take advantage of this wonderful tool in the right way. In the children’s case I think that parents have to supervise their children and put their children limits.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 4:26 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
I think that there should not be limitation to the vast array of knowlegdeg and freedom on the internet due to the fact that it is entitled within the freedom of expression clause in the Constitution that all should be able to express themselves in any way they see fit without infringing upon the rights of others. The moral and ethical issue, I believe, becomes a factor when wrong and misleading information is broadcasted on the Internet. This dillemma makes the line of what should and should not be able to be online very difficult to decipher, because on one hand we don't want peoples rights to be taken away but on the other hand we don't want misleading information to be globally broadcasted.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 4:17 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
The internet has the capability of making people more knowledgable and aware. It can also mis-inform people and lead them to conclusions under a mis conception. I think there should be limits to certain information being put up on the web (ex: medical records, personal records obtained through hacking....) as far as freedom of opinion or blogging goes I don't believe that should be limited. Increased information correct/incorrect leads to new ideas and causes people to research to find the truth. We live in country where freedom of speech is part of our foundation and it should remain that way.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 4:12 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
This is a complicated situation. The internet is indeed a wonderful resource for knowledge, but one has to be careful in determining what is truth and what is fiction. It would also be almost impossible "police" the internet because of the sheer vastness of it's language and cultural barriers. I believe that what someone does on the internet has to be a matter of personal responsibilty and should be treated the way we treat personal rights in our country: Your right to do something ends when it conflicts with another person's rights. The limit on knowledge and freedom on the internet is more of a personal decision than anything else.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 4:01 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
I don't believe that there should necessarily be limits on knowledge and freedom on the internet, but limits on the framing of information. I feel that there is an endless amount of INFORMATION on the internet, however what is actually KNOWLEDGE is debatable. I think that information on the internet should be framed in order to decrease the chances of an individual to take a piece of information and construe it as being something that is a fact. I believe that one of the biggest problems about the internet is that people may interpret something as a fact and possibly act on it in one way or another that could prove to be harmful to themselves, other people, or things.
In addition, with access to so much information people may even begin to take on moral burdens or feel obligated to act in one way or another. Although this is not necessarily something negative, it certainly brings a moral weight when one realizes the endless amount of things that are going on that they may want to assist with in one way or another and it is simply an impossibility for that individual.
I think that in relation to Dante's venture through the Inferno, Purgatorio and Paradiso, he will carry such a moral weight. As a living, mortal individual who is experiencing the after-life first hand, he must face the burden of handling all of his new knowledge and experiences.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 3:58 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
I believe that there should be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet. While it proves useful it is also a dangerous forum. Since the creation of the Internet there have been several situations in which people have been stalked, had their identity stolen, been harassed, and in some cases there have been people who have been murdered. When it comes to personal use, the World Wide Web has proven to cause more harm then good. There are some people that may argue that although there have been several such incidents involving the Internet; it has also proved helpful in catching some of these “bad” people red handed. However simple it may make things, and however much of a money maker it can be, there should be no option to sign up for things like credit cards or memberships to dating forums using personal information. While it is the choice of the user to share this information, it is not their choice to be hurt by it.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 3:48 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
There are many difficult parts of the vast knowledge and freedom which the technology of computers give that coincide with difficulties Dante experience at his encounter at the Gate of Hell. Just as Dante stood at the Gates in "aww" and utter confusion, many people are in “aww” and are confused with when they come encounter with computers. This is due to the fact that this technology, as compact as it may be, can literally shows the user new worlds, new knowledge, new people, and new concepts that were once foreigner to them .12 mille- seconds ago.
The utter enormity of knowledge which is growing every instant is not only hard to humanly comprehend but it also brings about many questions such as, "What should we do with all the knowledge?" and "How will this knowledge affect you and me?" For buried in this mound of knowledge are not only "Self Help Tools" but also DIY bomb building methods and ways to probe ones inner consciousness to a point that may not be healthy (only in the case that it brings to light self and socially destructive inhibitions). Just in the case of Dante standing at the Gates of Hell, one may find it "hard" to understand what to do with the tool facing you and what to take out of the experience of using the tool.
Just like every technology in life, from a stick to a computer, people have to ability to abuse its intended purpose. Could this be a matter of interpretation? Maybe. Could this be due to once past experiences? Probably. But whatever the reason for the corruption of these tools that are meant to be used in order to "help" once one has "crossed these horizons" or entered into the realms of knowledge or hell, corruption is possible and extremely plausible that it will happen.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 3:00 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
Yes, there should be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet. The Internet can can serve as a gateway to both good and evil for those who access it. Knowledge and freedom in and of themselves are not evil; hence, should not be limited. Limitations on knoweldge and freedom on the internet should be placed on those who acess the Internet; namely, humans. It is humans who have the capability to use knowledge and freedom for good or for evil. A human can learn or obtain as much knowledge from the Internet while it is also the choice of the human to utilize the learned/obtained knoweldge from the Internet for good or for evil. Knowledge in combination with freedom empowers a human to take or not take actions. It is the human that cannot be trusted; therefore, there should be limitations on knowledge and freedom on the Internet.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 1:54 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
There should not be any limits on the internet because all knowledge, no matter how relevent or factual, is important. Folks have to learn to judge for themselves what is important and true, and what is inconsequential and incorrect. Sadly. the latter catagoty is the more frequently represented on the internet, but to limit knowledge of all kinds will limit the good too.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 12:12 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
Whether or not an outside force places limits on the knowledge and freedom available to Internet users, there already exist limits on each user. Time is one of the limits around which noone can get. There may be thousands and millions of years-worth of information posted on the web but each user can only dedicate so much time in their life to it. We could also consider retention and memory. Even though the average human uses relatively small amounts of their mental capacities, no brain is an endless storage unit capable of holding the vast amounts of information available from the Internet.
Thus, before we think about limits posed by some exterior governing body, we could spend time thinking on a more personal level based on our preexisting, purely physical limitations. Because I don't have thousands of years to spend online, I have to be selective in the kinds of knowledge I hope to gain from Internet use. Also, would I prefer to have that information at the cost of not having something else, such as exercise, time with family and friends, travel, and other life experiences and types of knowledge? Do I want to fill my mind with information gained online or is there something else I want in there? Do I want to learn lots of little things halfway or just a few things really well? Before asking a "Big Brother" to look out for me, I should learn to critically evaluate how I spend my time on the Internet and how much because there already are limits.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 10:08 AM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
With vast amounts of information available as easily as it is on the internet, the benefits are possibly endless. But not everything should be freely accessible to the general public; a book with a copyright, for example. Free access to things like this can hurt the creator, because they do not profit from their work, and instead others do. There also are concerns over the privacy of personal information such as banking information and social security numbers, which also should not be available on the internet. But this is not a problem that is easily fixed. As the technology evolves, so must the laws and protections evolve to combat too much freedom online.
|
Submitted February 6, 2006, 7:16 AM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
Coming from America where we are so marked by the 1st Amendment rights... I want to say that the Internet should be free to provide whatever it wants. However the Internet is worldwide and it crosses boundaries with the culture/country lines. Some cultures without globalization and the democratic freedoms attempt to restrain the Internet. We have seen in cases of China where they use a strong hand to sustain their own culture free of certain things on the Internet.
But how would their be any limit on the freedom of the Internet? Better yet who would be able to control such a worldwide machine?
The Internet does ruin a lot of good things and provides cheats for those looking for them. Not to mention the numerous illegal and morally repungent things that are on the Internet.
I just see no possible way to limit it---all you can do is approach it all with skepticism and be a knowledgeable Internet searcher.
|
Submitted February 5, 2006, 11:31 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
On the surface I would have to say no. However, before going too far I would want further clarification of the words knowledge and freedom. I do not seek to complicate things, only to better understand what is being asked. For the sake of this discussion, I will assume 'knowledge' refers to the ability to obtain information, and 'freedom' refers to the ease and ability to both find and post such information.
Working with these definitions I believe a democratic society should be wary of placing limitations on using the internet as a means to knowledge. This argument has been covered in great detail by democratic thinkers and scholars such as J.S. Mill and needs no further discussion here. But there are certainly many relevant moral questions that come to mind. Questions of national security (the ability to retrieve detailed instructions on bomb making in a few mouse clicks), racism (hate groups or racial groups advocating for the extermination of a particular race or ethnicity), and religion (calling for a worldwide holy war against a country and seeking out sympathizers using the internet) are just a few. Each one of these topics offers a long and exhausting tangent of their own. However, these issues can be seen from a moral standpoint and often raise further questions with fewer good answers.
So then one must decide where to draw the line. From a historical perspective no means of communication or knowledge base has had the global and relatively overnight effects that the internet has had on the way we seek out information. One obvious problem for me as a reader using the internet to garner knowledge is the ability to ensure the validity and reliability of what is obtained. The ‘knowledge’ available on Dante alone is staggering, to the point that much of the information can lose its potency. How does one have the time to filter through all the information, determine validity and reliability, and then put that information to good use? I do not know, but I certainly do not. I think this problem is getting progressively worse as more and more information becomes available every day.
Where does it stop? I am not sure. But I do think there is a limit on a technology’s good. That limit is crossed when that technology can be used for greater evil than good. This then, becomes a moral question Have we crossed that point with the internet? Maybe. If not, we are headed that way. No doubt the internet lends great utility for users who have good intent and the resources to properly utilize the internet but the opposite circumstance is true as well.
Finally, considering solely the use of the internet as a means to shape and understand our understanding of older texts, I wonder what the long term moral implications could be. It seems likely, that if nothing else, the original texts will become less important and information and discussion about the texts will become more important. Then the texts themselves lose value and in my estimation, the educational experience suffers as well.
What do you think?
|
Submitted February 5, 2006, 8:50 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
While I agree that the internet is a valuable resource for obtaining knowledge and information, I believe that there should be limits placed upon this access to knowledge. If the knowledge obtained on the internet is not used responsibly then it may lead to serious crimes. Because of the freedom that the internet provides, people may unwittingly violate copyright or privacy laws. The government realized this and enacted various laws, such as the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), to protect the rights of the individual. The NET Act makes it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, or share copies of electronic copyrighted works. Limited access to federal sites can also reduce the amount of computer related fraud, which was the goal of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).
|
Submitted February 5, 2006, 4:44 PM
Name
Submitted February 5, 2006, 3:18 PM
Name
Should there be limits on knowledge and freedom on the Internet?
I believe that limits on the knowledge and freedom of the Internet should be taken into context. Just as in watching television, it should be up to the viewer what he or she exposes them to.
For example, children using the internet should be as closely monitored as they are when watching television. The reason for this is because they lack the ability to discern good from bad and have no idea how exposure to bad influences will affect them. Just as parents use the v-chip to ban certain shows, parents should set forth filters that ban sites which would expose their children to gratuitous material.
It must also be noted that children exposed to gratuitous material may think that what they are seeing is acceptable behavior or an acceptable part of society. For example, a child who regularly watches WWF wrestling may think that punching or kicking another student during school hours is an acceptable outlet for anger. However, unlike WWF superstars, the child being beaten will feel pain and will not get up again and again like an immortal Prometheus. And it is only after completing such an error in judgment will the child learn the lesson that he could have skipped entirely if it were not for his exposure to violence. And while this is being said, this careful monitoring of the internet should only apply to children, not adults.
While it is still unethical and morally prurient to view salacious material, adults, unlike children have the capability to make mature decisions and understand that what they are seeing is largely fiction. They are also able to prevent it from dominating their lives as in the example of the child watching WWF.
The internet could be seen as just another vehicle for free speech. And under that context, it should not be limited. On the other hand, there are many illegal things that could happen on the net and those are the things that should be closely monitored. Computers being used by children should be closely monitored to prevent them from accidentally accessing material inappropriate for them. On the whole, the context of the subject should be carefully considered before making any decision.
|
|
© 1996–2009, Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media. (Copyright Notice)
|