Should information on the Internet be unrestricted? Why or why not? Provide examples.
1. Should information on the Internet be unrestricted? Why or why not?
This question is fairly straightforward, and is somewhat controversial, meaning some argue one way, while others argue the exact opposite. Specifically, it is asking you to take a position on this question: Do you agree that information on the Internet should be unrestricted? Have you given the question some thought as to what position you want to take?
Opponents that argue that information on the Internet should be unrestricted, usually appeal to freedom of speak and the right to the access to information, as well as a right to make your own choice, a least for those of age. Also, browsers, such as Internet Explore provide manual ways to restrict information for your personal and business use. This allows the user the freedom to restrict information, while allowing for the “unrestricted nature” of the Internet information. In other words, it is a personal and business choice and still allows for “unrestricted” information to all people to voluntary use (or not use) the information.
For example, Internet Explorer has includes five predefined zones: Internet, Local Intranet, Trusted Sites, Restricted Sites, and My Computer. You can set the security options (e.g., no sexual content, no violence, etc.) that you want for each zone, and then add or remove Web sites from the zones, depending on your level of trust in a Web site. This works for parental controls as ...
This solution discusses if information on the Internet should be unrestricted, and also provides a rationale for the position. Examples are also provided.