I cannot personally see any of the 'problems' cited by this article as being detrimental to such a severe degree, which Cheryl seemed to believe (except for the one about cyber-sex that's just gross!). Admittedly this article was written in 1995 and hasn't received an update since that publishing date, so maybe the author still agrees with what they have said to this day.
Who knows?
The internet offers a massive learning resource to everyone, and although we may not necessarily agree with all its content, we can all say that we certainly become more realistic with our opinions as a result of being submitted to such content.
Cheryl whether you like it or not the internet is an art form, which means it is a release expression and information. And you are unfortunately the modern day Plato we can all morally disagree with the content available over the internet. But irrespective of that the internet cannot be held responsible for the damages that people create for themselves.
Censorship leads to the removal of free speech and expression, which proves to make people more submissive.
Look at the Soviet Union other any other fascist dictatorship for the evidence.
This is probably why the past was so much more socially sound (or so you seem to infer with your comment), and more likely to be considered being so by the majority of people during that era, who were lacking the knowledge of the reality of affairs worldwide, or at least to the some extent with information that is provided for us now in the form of the internet.
Censoring or controlling the content placed on the internet goes against the 'more' democratic world we are supposed to have been brought up into, so my question to you is can you blame the ills of society and the world on the 21st century youth who wishes to retain the knowledge of the real state of affairs of the world morally, socially and politically?
And forever condemn them to the media based message of a more violent youth which are nearing adulthood and the array of problems they will bring to society with them. In reality what you should want to have monitored instead is the tabloid based news stories that condemns such a mentally challenging digital information and commerce system.
But it has been a pleasant experience to read this article and view it from a perspective where this advancement of knowledge was new and brought along with it an array ethical and social problems. I like the thought that most people can look back upon the article and disagree with the majority of the points made within it.
The Internet? Bah!
Hype alert: Why cyberspace isn't, and will never be, nirvana
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
After two decades online, I'm perplexed. It's not that I haven't had a gas of a good time on the Internet. I've met great people and even caught a hacker or two. But today, I'm uneasy about this most trendy and oversold community. Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities. Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.
Baloney. Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth in no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.
Consider today's online world. The Usenet, a worldwide bulletin board, allows anyone to post messages across the nation. Your word gets out, leapfrogging editors and publishers. Every voice can be heard cheaply and instantly. The result? Every voice is heard. The cacophany more closely resembles citizens band radio, complete with handles, harrasment, and anonymous threats. When most everyone shouts, few listen. How about electronic publishing? Try reading a book on disc. At best, it's an unpleasant chore: the myopic glow of a clunky computer replaces the friendly pages of a book. And you can't tote that laptop to the beach. Yet Nicholas Negroponte, director of the MIT Media Lab, predicts that we'll soon buy books and newspapers straight over the Intenet. Uh, sure.
What the Internet hucksters won't tell you is tht the Internet is one big ocean of unedited data, without any pretense of completeness. Lacking editors, reviewers or critics, the Internet has become a wasteland of unfiltered data. You don't know what to ignore and what's worth reading. Logged onto the World Wide Web, I hunt for the date of the Battle of Trafalgar. Hundreds of files show up, and it takes 15 minutes to unravel them--one's a biography written by an eighth grader, the second is a computer game that doesn't work and the third is an image of a London monument. None answers my question, and my search is periodically interrupted by messages like, "Too many connectios, try again later."
Won't the Internet be useful in governing? Internet addicts clamor for government reports. But when Andy Spano ran for county executive in Westchester County, N.Y., he put every press release and position paper onto a bulletin board. In that affluent county, with plenty of computer companies, how many voters logged in? Fewer than 30. Not a good omen.
Point and click:
Then there are those pushing computers into schools. We're told that multimedia will make schoolwork easy and fun. Students will happily learn from animated characters while taught by expertly tailored software.Who needs teachers when you've got computer-aided education? Bah. These expensive toys are difficult to use in classrooms and require extensive teacher training. Sure, kids love videogames--but think of your own experience: can you recall even one educational filmstrip of decades past? I'll bet you remember the two or three great teachers who made a difference in your life.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss