In the recent times, the anonymity as well as freedom of broadcasting on the internet has enabled each individual to express their views, which has rendered the cyberspace unreliable. If questioned, I agree to such a view to a major extent. My inclination is explained further.
There are several reasons to support my argument. The first one is dubious sources of information. In other words, the ability of publishing posts is given by all social media, blogs and many other platforms, which leaves the internet brimming with fallacious information. For example, any user can post an update on Facebook and be received and forwarded by many other users. Apart from that, there is no monitoring on the internet. To elaborate, in contrast with the conventional methods of learning news such as newspapers and TV channels, this mode has no censoring or double checking by qualified individuals, which leaves its reputation questionable. As per a research, an average user comes across 47% fake posts in a daily browsing of social media.
Furthermore, the content creators of modern media have no journalism ethics. This is to say that earlier when news was dished out on news networks and other information was shared by prestigious reference books; however, the current publishers, which is an average user with a mobile phone and Internet network, has no moral values and sensitivity. Finally, the cyberspace allows mass communication, which makes the false information spread faster. Unlike previous decade, contemporary technology allows many types of rumours and fallacious news to go viral and manipulate mass.
Nevertheless, I would not overlook the other aspect as well. Mainly because currently information accompanies evidence. This is to say that in previous times, the receivers relied on the broadcaster solely and believed anything. Whereas now all viewers demand evidence. For instance, there are videos, sting operations and live streams, which cannot be doctored and is more believable. Moreover, there is more transparency due to multiple sources. People can cross verify all news as well as follow and subscribe to more prestigious sources.
In conclusion, although the clarity and proofs offered by the internet are undeniable, my arguments convince that to a major extent, this arena of receiving information is not believable due to ethical and technical reasons. I believe one should always have a degree of healthy skepticism towards anything one reads on the internet.
In the recent times, the anonymity
as well
as freedom of broadcasting on the internet has enabled each individual to express their views, which has rendered the cyberspace unreliable. If questioned, I
agree
to such a view to a major extent. My inclination is
explained
further
.
There are several reasons to support my argument. The
first
one is dubious sources of
information
. In
other
words, the ability of publishing posts is
given
by all social media, blogs and
many
other
platforms, which
leaves
the internet brimming with fallacious
information
.
For example
, any
user
can post an update on Facebook and
be received
and forwarded by
many
other
users
. Apart from that, there is no monitoring on the internet. To elaborate,
in contrast
with the conventional methods of learning
news
such as newspapers and TV channels, this mode has no censoring or double checking by qualified individuals, which
leaves
its reputation questionable. As per a research, an average
user
comes
across 47% fake posts in a daily browsing of social media.
Furthermore
, the content creators of modern media have no journalism ethics. This is to say that earlier when
news
was dished
out on
news
networks and
other
information
was shared
by prestigious reference books;
however
, the
current
publishers, which is an average
user
with a mobile phone and Internet network, has no moral values and sensitivity.
Finally
, the cyberspace
allows
mass communication, which
makes
the false
information
spread faster. Unlike previous decade, contemporary technology
allows
many
types of
rumours
and fallacious
news
to go viral and manipulate mass.
Nevertheless
, I would not overlook the
other
aspect
as well
.
Mainly
because
currently
information
accompanies evidence. This is to say that in previous times, the receivers relied on the broadcaster
solely
and believed anything.
Whereas
now
all viewers demand evidence.
For instance
, there are videos, sting operations and
live
streams, which cannot
be doctored
and is more believable.
Moreover
, there is more transparency due to multiple sources.
People
can cross verify all
news
as well
as follow
and subscribe to more prestigious sources.
In conclusion
, although the clarity and proofs offered by the internet are undeniable, my arguments convince that to a major extent, this arena of receiving
information
is not believable due to ethical and technical reasons. I believe one should always have a degree of healthy skepticism towards anything one reads on the internet.