The Internet has allowed a large amount of criminal, offensive and discriminatory information to be

easily accessed.

POINT

The ability for anyone to be able to publish anything online without barriers resulted in a large amount
of information which could not only be incorrect but could also be criminal, offensive or discriminatory if
it were available to the general public. This sort of information would not usually be widely published via
offline channels, but with the advent of the Internet it is very easily accessible by anyone like never
before, and this is a dangerous president. A cavalcade of propaganda from extremist groups such as
religious zealots or Neo-Nazis for example can be accessed by anyone around the world. This is
dangerous as vulnerable people could easily be taken in and exploited if the discovered this material. It
is quite often found that ‘lone-wolf’ terrorists, for example, have gotten their information and
inspiration from the Internet. Garry Reid, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Special Operations
and Combating Terrorism in the USA states that “Enabled by 21st-century technology, extremists have
optimized the use of Internet chat rooms, Web sites and e-mail chains to spread their virulent messages
and reach a global audience of potential recruits”.[1] But it is not only terrorists who are utilizing the
Internet at a detriment to society. Various reports have linked a sharp rise in paedophilia with the
growth of the Internet[2] as it is an easy and often anonymous way to share such material with the
world. The ability for anyone to publish anything online could clearly do considerable harm to society,
which would have otherwise been much less prevalent and easier to control and regulate.

COUNTERPOINT

Freedom of information should mean freedom of all types of information, even if it is extreme
propaganda from fringe groups such as neo-Nazis or Al-Qaeda. The public must be trusted to be able to
make its own decisions on the value of such texts. What is great about the Internet is that points of view
that would not necessarily get much publicity in traditional media can be aired and discussed online,
from serious issues such as capital punishment to less serious ones like aliens. Of course one of the
downfalls of such freedom is that illegal content such as child pornography can be made available in a
way which it could not have before, but highlighting this issue is not entirely fair as it is greatly
outweighed by the information available online that is perfectly fine and legal. This does not of course
excuse the publication of such images. It is, however, a slight misnomer to suggest that the Internet is
entirely free from the restraints of law. In issues of legality, governments can take action: they can either
trace the origin of the images or force web space providers and ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to take
down the content. On the whole, having ready access to such a large amount of information, and being
able to freely add and discuss it, is beneficial to society, because it is both liberating and educational.
The Internet is a threat to privacy

POINT

Everyone’s privacy can be greatly harmed by the Internet. Some websites store information. Some ask
us to fill in information which can be sold to other sites for commercial purposes. As the Internet gains
more and more users the temptation for criminals to gain our private information becomes greater.
Hackers can hide their true location when engaging in illegal activities online, so the likelihood of their
being brought to justice is low. Whenever people post something online, it becomes almost impossible
to erase, and with the proliferation of social networks posting personal information online is becoming
second nature, this is a dangerous precedent. Take for example the posting of our locations online via
geotagging, this for many is an action which doesn’t take much consideration, however, to demonstrate
the danger of this designer Barry Borsoom setup the website PleaseRobMe.com which would grab
geocaching data and tell people when a person’s house was potentially empty.[1]

With the aid of the Internet then, we are symbolically sleepwalking into a big brother style existence, in
an information age all data about ourselves is an important asset and one which needs defending. The
infringement and degradation of our privacy as a side-result of the Internet should be of great concern,
and it is potentially one of the most detrimental effects the Internet could have on society.

COUNTERPOINT

Privacy online is a big concern, but an educated citizen can navigate the Internet in a safe and sensible
manner with minimal privacy issues, although as with being offline a the threat of crime can never be
entirely eliminated. When we go online no-one forces the user to share private information, it is
volunteered by the user in exchange for a free service, it is often a small price to pay for the services
that can be received in return, such as free e-mail or free webspace. Of course privacy can be infringed
in other ways, by unlawful access to personal files for example, but if protection such as firewalls are
setup and users are careful about what they download privacy online can be easily maintained. It is
misleading to say we are sleeping walking into a big brother existence, it gives in impression that the
effect the Internet is having on society is conspiratorial, this is clearly not the case, people like the way
the Internet can bring people all over the world together. Privacy is no more of a problem online than
privacy is in the offline world, the issue is being overstated by the proposition.

 
The quality of information online cannot always be relied upon

POINT

The Internet has become a major source of information for many people. However, online information
has usually not gone through the same checks as newspaper articles, books or factual television
programming. There is a higher risk that some of the facts or quotations from a particular source in an
article are false. Whereas newspapers might lose customers if people find out they have been ‘selling
lies’, a blog and other online content can be easily created and uploaded as well as just as quickly being
deleted. If people base their opinions on the information they find online, they could well be basing
their opinion on false information. Take for example the 2006 conspiracy film Loose Change which has
had millions of views. A report from the thinktank Demos in a report titled “Truth, Lies and the Internet:
A Report into Young People’s Digital Fluency”[1] state that the film contains a “...litnay of errors,
misattributions, vague insinuations, subtle misquotes, and outright falsehoods...” Since the Internet
gives equal space to material of greatly varying quality, the degree to which the internet can been
viewed as being a total force for good is drawn into question. If an informed society is an empowered
society it therefore stands to reason that a misinformed society is disempowered society.

COUNTERPOINT

The Internet gives millions of people access to information they would not otherwise have had, which is
a huge benefit. People who read the news, offline or online, are not inherently dupable, they like all
people do not simply accept messages they are, to varying degrees, critical of what they read and not
simply passive. When people spend a lot of time reading online content they can differentiate between
bloggers who are untrustworthy or extremely biases from bloggers who carefully refer to legitimate
sources. The problem of bad information in news-making is not unique to the Internet; there are lots of
trashy magazines and poorly researched news content in traditional print channels of communication as
well. We learn in formal education to double-check our sources and not believe everything we read, and
we can apply that skill while surfing the Internet.

It is not enough to say that the internet contans falsehoods to dismiss the value of the internet. All
mediums contain falsehoods whether intentional or unintentional but there is a much broader picture
that needs to be considered in terms of the ability of the internet to provide people with freedom of
expression and freedom of information, if it being a free for all has the downside of some falsehoods
then thaty is a price worth paying.

 
The Internet has increased economic and creative prosperity in a leveled way

POINT

The Internet has brought greater prosperity, allowing not only established business more distribution
channels over a wider geographical area but it has also allowed individuals through e-bay, for example,
and small independent businesses to flourish. This has brought a lot more choice to ordinary people,
and also driven down prices as people find it easier to compare different companies’ products. The main
advantage to small businesses is that they can cheaply set up online and find a global market for their
goods and services. By making it easier to work anywhere with an Internet connection, the internet has
also allowed many more people to work from home and to share projects with co-workers across the
whole world which has allowed for greater economic efficiencies.

The Internet has also provided a cheap and wide-reaching platform for independent creative people to
share and distribute their work. This is done via self-promotion similar to small business, in the form of
digital portfolios and self-hosted blogs as well as sharing content more generally, take for example the
vast array of independent movies gets regularly posted to video-hosting websites such as Vimeo. The
Internet has given anyone creative equal footing by which to compete as everyone has the potential to
reach the same global audience.

COUNTERPOINT

The Internet has certainly allowed many new small businesses and independent creative people to win
international exposure at a low price. However, the Internet is, on the whole, dominated by big
companies taking most of the business while smaller organizations struggle. The Internet has in fact
damaged independents more than it has helped, as offline shops struggle to compete with the financial
savings of operating entirely online. This is also true for art and other creative pursuits, because
independent offline art projects are being harmed by the convenience of simply posting work online
digitally. The economic benefits being spoken of do exist, but they favor the already powerful
conglomerates over independents, as those conglomerates can use their vast income base to dominate.
It is especially bad when these big companies migrate online, because they shred important jobs, to the
detriment of society. The lowered barrier to entry means that anyone can setup business online, but on
the whole the majority will struggle to survive and only a rare few will flourish.
 The power that the Internet gives to citizens is good for democracy

POINT

People often complain that their opinions are ultimately pointless as nothing will change. This trend can
be demonstrated with the numbers of people going out to vote consistently falling, however with the
rise of the Internet this trend could reverse. What the Internet has enabled is for everyone, in one way
or another, to have the chance to truly have their voice heard. It has given them the ability to fully
engage in topics that matter to them on a personal level. As this website and this very debate show,
people can debate, share opinions, and start petitions in ways that were never truly available before.
Not only is democracy being revived, it is also being demanded in countries that do not have democracy
due to Internet access. This can be seen in what has been described as the Arab Spring, whereby the
Internet was used as a tool to organize pro-democracy protest in a number of Middle-Eastern countries
including Tunisia, Egypt and Syria, to name a but a few.[1]

COUNTERPOINT

It is overly hopeful to suggest that simply because people now have another medium through which to
discuss their views and opinions that they will necessarily go out and vote. The decrease in voting is a
concern for western countries, but the Internet should not be seen as the panacea that will
singlehandedly solve the problem. In reality, the situation is much more complex. Of course the Internet
provides a unique platform to discuss ideas, but it is not revolutionary. The opposition paints a picture
suggesting that grassroots movements could not happen without the Internet. This clearly is not true, as
a brief look at history will show. While the Arab Spring shows a positive use of the Internet in aiding
democracy, the same tools can be applied toward negative goals. Indeed, the Internet is not intrinsically
geared towards aiding democracy. For example, much of the organization for the attacks and looting of
at the UK riots in August 2011 was organized via social networks and blogs.[1]
The Internet helps to bring communities and the world closer together.

POINT

With the ability for anybody to easily and quickly share rich information online, via a whole host of tools,
the Internet serves bring people together. Firstly take for example social networks. Friends can remain
connected to each other when miles apart. People can maintain and even create friendships without the
barrier of geography. Additionally, social networks have a capacity to distribute news in a timely and
targeted manner, directed at the people whom it mostly concerns, that is far greater than that of
traditional media cannot compete. Secondly there are many instances of hyper-local news communities
springing up online in which people can truly engage in their community, and help improve it. This
model can and is extended to bigger areas, helping to engage society for its greater good. For example
Fillthathole.org.uk, provides a nationwide portal for U.K. citizens to report road potholes. Thirdly the
Internet brings the world together by not only encouraging direct communication with people from
other countries, but also by being able to share and distribute information in a way which traditional
forms of communication could not do.

COUNTERPOINT

This image of the Internet drawing people being closer together is simply an illusion. Sitting in front of
computers rather than getting out in the world in fact isolates people from one another. Some
academics argue that narcissism is the glue that keeps social networks together.[1] If people didn’t
believe that their views were important and needed to be heard, then social networks would be unable
to function. Social networks encourage people to express what they are doing rather than reading what
others have to say. If people want to feel integrated into their communities, they should get out and
about and do something active for it. Complaining about things online will not result in direct action
solving the problem. Although it is true that people all over the world are now theoretically able to
communicate with one another more easily, that is not how the Internet is actually used most of the
time. Many Internet users either read digitized versions of traditional information sources, and when
they are on social networking sites, they engage most often with real-life friends, with whom they could
easily spend face-to-face time. Language is the other major barrier to worldwide integration. While
there are translation tools online, most people online will stick to communicating in their native
language, and this is particularly true of English speakers. The idea that the Internet is bringing new
people together is on the whole a myth.