Internet Filtering in Workplace

Both Justine Timmons and Honoria Bell offer positions that are supported by both facts and
opinion. Justine Timmons advocates to filter the internet in the workplace, while Honoria Bell
argues that it is not a solution to increase productivity and an effective workplace. While both
Justine and Honoria present valid arguments, Honoria provides a stronger argument
because of his reliable explanation and reference.

To begin with, Honoria’s argument stands out due to his provision of multiple instances of
compelling evidence and verifiable facts. He highlights that prohibiting internet free access
can bring a negative impact on workers. This claim is supported by author Laura
Vanderkam, stating that “No one can get through a whole workday without taking a break.”
And he also provides empirical evidence with the study of National University of Singapore,
which found that “Web-surfing refreshed employees, actually making them more productive,
not less.” Moreover, he continues to use other studies to build on his argument and prove its
credibility. This makes his viewpoint a better-supported one.

Additionally, Honoria argues that the internet is also a communication tool like telephone. So,
workers should be allowed to use the internet to contact everybody. He advocates for trust
and responsibility, arguing that treating employees like children with Internet filters is
unnecessary. He suggests that clear guidelines on acceptable Internet use, rather than
restrictive filters, are a more effective way to ensure a positive work environment and
mitigate legal risks. This approach aligns with fostering a culture of trust and responsibility
among employees. This adds to the credibility of his stance.

In contrast, looking at Justine Timmons’ view, his argument is mostly filled with opinion and
he cites only one named source which was incomplete. While the concern about
cyberslacking and potentially costly downsides is acknowledged, the absence of precise
data diminishes the overall strength of his perspective. Furthermore, his viewpoint lacks
robust evidence to counter the valid proof presented by Honoria.

To conclude, although Justine Timmons presents some evidence, it is clear that Honoria
Bell’s argument is more convincing. His ideas are backed up by logical explanations and
verifiable evidence, providing a well-supported and convincing stance. These diverse
sources help to support his argument, not only because of their presence, but also because
they prove that his position is credible. While there is some evidence presented in Justine’s
viewpoint, its strength is compromised by its vagueness and lack of robustness. As
presented, Honoria Bell’s position is more compelling than its counterpart because it is much
better supported and significantly more convincing.