Freedom of information is considered to be one of the most significant advances of modern society. While part of the population argues that free knowledge beneficially contributes diverse areas, others suggest that due to the importance of certain content, a limitation should be imposed. From my perspective, although there are inevitable risks, the positive impacts of multiple research to overcome the problems.
On the one hand, those who defend that some content not worth sharing without limits highlight that criminals can use this precious knowledge in negative forms. Advance chemical content, for instance, might allow common people to build bombs without previous academic studies. To illustrate the daunting challenges, in 2018, a terrorist exploded a church, killing fifteen victims thanks to instructions read in online forums. The fundamental issue is alleged to be the power gave to instable individuals that might frighten innocent citizens
On the other hand, countless recent discoveries and advances in technology, health, and so on, are a consequence of the collaborative work of many. This contribution, nowadays, does not limit to academics, but to all people who are interested to study the topic. For example, after an international crisis caused by Zika virus, the definitive cure to the illness came from a suggestion of a high school student who analysed the data on Google. Similarly, society has seen numerous advances with unexpected foundations, that would, otherwise, be limited in a different environment.
To conclude, this essay argued that although there are people who might not use the information properly, creating a limitation in free knowledge may result in enormous negative consequences to the advances of humanity. Thus, I concur with the notion that it is more advantageous not censoring the information.
Freedom of information
is considered
to be one of the most significant advances of modern society. While part of the population argues that free knowledge
beneficially
contributes diverse areas, others suggest that due to the importance of certain content, a limitation should
be imposed
. From my perspective, although there are inevitable
risks
, the
positive
impacts of multiple research to overcome the problems.
On the one hand, those
who
defend that
some
content not worth sharing without limits highlight that criminals can
use
this precious knowledge in
negative
forms. Advance chemical content,
for instance
, might
allow
common
people
to build bombs without previous academic studies. To illustrate the daunting challenges, in 2018, a terrorist exploded a church, killing fifteen victims thanks to instructions read in online forums. The fundamental issue
is alleged
to be the power gave to
instable
individuals that might frighten innocent citizens
On the other hand
, countless recent discoveries and advances in technology, health, and
so
on, are a consequence of the collaborative work of
many
. This contribution, nowadays, does not limit to academics,
but
to all
people
who
are interested
to study the topic.
For example
, after an international crisis caused by Zika virus, the definitive cure to the illness came from a suggestion of a high school student
who
analysed
the data on Google.
Similarly
, society has
seen
numerous advances with unexpected foundations, that would,
otherwise
,
be limited
in a
different
environment.
To conclude
, this essay argued that although there are
people
who
might not
use
the information
properly
, creating a limitation in free knowledge may result in enormous
negative
consequences to
the advances of humanity.
Thus
, I concur with the notion that it is more advantageous not censoring the information.