Writing. 1500 words.HEADmaster

2 files changed, 118 insertions, 65 deletions

diff --git a/paper.md b/paper.md
index b1b04a1..b54893d 100644
--- a/paper.md
+++ b/paper.md
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-title: Freedom of speech in the internet age
+title: Considering the nature of freedom of speech in the internet age
 author: Mohit Agarwal
 date: September 2021
 bibliography: ["reference.bib","socialmedia.bib"]
@@ -46,79 +46,118 @@ sense, to one that is more open and wider through the existance of the
 internet.
 
 In modern society usage of the internet is clearly widespread and is
-noticeably an incredibly significant in our world today and will
-likely continue to be so [@stats;@stats-population;@stats-access].
-The nature of the internet raises many questions in relation to our
-understanding of freedom of speech and allows the spread of
-information in a way that was once impossible. The significance and
-prevalence of the internet both now and in the foreseeable future,
-particularly given its popularity with young people means that we must
-consider the internet's relation to freedom of speech and how we
-should, or rather shouldn't attempt to act on it.
-
-A significant feature of internet communication methods is its
-resistance to regulation to limit freedom of speech. Some popular
-internet platforms have been known to restrict their users'
-communications, at times to the cause of some alarm
+noticeably an incredibly significant phenomenon of our world today and
+will likely continue to be so
+[@stats;@stats-population;@stats-access].  A significant feature of
+internet communication methods are their potential for resistance to
+regulation, and thereby resistant to attempted limitations on freedom
+of speech. Some popular internet platforms have been known to restrict
+their users' communications, at times to the cause of some alarm
 [@twitter-suspends;@merkel].  These platforms, however, must be
-considered for what they are: popular, for-profit, private sites.
+considered for what they are: popular, for-profit, privately owned sites.
 However much we are invited to consider them as communications
-provides that exist for the common good of humanity, they are not. In
-this light, just as an individual may say what he pleases, or a
-newspaper may publish the content of its choosing, a website may host
-or not host content of its choosing as a private enterprise. For
-those who are not fond of such measures, there are other platforms
-which do not moderate users' content to such an extent such as the
-site 4chan, but they therby naturally have content that others may
-find distasteful [@4chan;@moot]. 
+provides that exist for the common good of humanity
+[@twitter-mission], they are not. In this light, just as an individual
+may say what he pleases, or a newspaper may publish the content of its
+choosing, a website may host or not host content of its choosing as a
+private enterprise. For those who are not fond of such measures, there
+are other platforms which do not moderate users' content to such an
+extent such as the site 4chan, but they therby naturally have content
+that others may find distasteful [@4chan;@moot]. 
+
+Given the prevalence, however, of a small handful of platforms
+[@stats], this may be worrying. Although in theory, the internet is
+free, in reality a small group of private organisations control any
+sense of freedom of speech and have the power and have used the power
+to limit it. To an even more worrying degree, they have the power to
+limit what we say in what we consider as 'private' communications and
+the power to change what we say to something that we did not. Although
+we should consider this as a potential threat to freedom of speech,
+particularly as these companies may have an interest in regulating
+freedom of speech given their revenue from advertisements, we must
+acknowledge that this potential limitation comes with using a private
+site, and that they cannot guarantee us freedom. Furthermore, unlike
+in a traditional sense, any activity we see as a limitation of our
+speech is not a terminal act. We can use any platform at any time,
+whilst a government can and has maintained its authority over citizens
+[@stasiland].
 
-On this level it is clear, that private regulation is fine, and indeed
-quite useful (cite), particularly on popular platforms that are used
+On this level it is clear, that private regulation is fine, and
+perhaps quite useful such as on popular platforms that are used
 by large numbers of people, or by particularly young children, such as
-YouTube. Governments will struggle to regulate this as much of it is
-beyond the bounds of their nation and is of such high volume that an
-attempt at regulation would be meaningless. There is cause for
-concern, however, with regulation on a 'lower level', such as the
-private companies that provide the infrastructure to form what we refer
-to as the internet. Sites have been taken down like this [@8chan] and
-it is an area that can be dangerous if regulation is introduced
---reword [@ieee-freedom]. Regulation and surveillance at this level
+YouTube [@youtube-children]. Governments will struggle to regulate
+this as much of it is beyond the bounds of their nation and is of such
+high volume that an attempt at regulation would be meaningless. This
+means that in the internet age, freedom of speech is in our hands. If
+we allow it to, an organisation can heavily regulate freedom of speech
+and regulate the information that reaches us, as the major social
+media platforms currently do through their 'recommendations', yet if
+we act accordingly we can have as much or as little freedom of speech
+on the internet as we choose through the variety of platforms.
+
+There is cause for concern, however, with regulation on a 'lower
+level', such as the private companies that provide the infrastructure
+that allows the internet to exist. Websites have been removed by these
+organisations [@8chan] and can heavily limit freedom of speech if
+regulated. It is this that leads to arguments for non-discrimination
+by these organisations [@ieee-freedom]. Heavy regulation at this level
 poses a threat to the freedoms the internet provides and the freedoms
 of citizens, as it would give governments or private companies to
-remove sites as they please. Furthermore, payment transaction
-services, such as PayPal or Visa can be considered in this way, and
-similarly, any attempts for regulation could be very serious for the
-freedoms of individuals.
+remove sites as they please. Such regulation is visible, such as in
+China, or as we might refer to it: 'censorship' [@china-firewall],
+despite much distinction.
 
-In protest to the potential for this there has been an increased
-interest in decentralisation. Cryptocurrencies can replace traditional
-payment systems, networks such as Tor can circumvent potential removal
-of sites from the internet, and decentralised communications protocols
-featuring encryption allow free and private communication. In fact,
-these technologies are already in popular use, both by those who have
-an interest in their privacy and freedoms, but also by criminal
-groups. Although there is a lot of effort to prevent this crime
-[@crime], the advance of technology makes it more difficult, thus
-presenting the problem that attempts to regulate freedom of speech in
-the internet age are useless, due to the freedoms the internet age
-provides. New technologies make it increasingly difficult to prevent
-communication and transfer of capital between parties governments
-might wish to. Thereby, it may be of greater interest to encourage
-healthy use of the internet, rather than attempt to force it, when
-doing so is arguably impossible. 
+Furthermore, payment transaction services, such as PayPal or Visa can
+be considered in this way, and similarly, any attempts for regulation
+could be very serious for the freedoms of individuals.
+
+Although theses limitations may change the nature of freedom of
+speech, in protest to the potential for such limitations there has
+been an increased interest in decentralisation. Cryptocurrencies can
+replace traditional payment systems, networks such as Tor can
+circumvent potential removal of sites from the internet, and
+decentralised communications protocols featuring encryption allow free
+and private communication. In fact, these technologies are already in
+popular use, both by those who have an interest in their privacy and
+freedoms, but also by criminal groups. Although there is a lot of
+effort to prevent this crime [@crime], technology makes it more
+difficult for governments, thus presenting the problem that attempts
+to regulate freedom of speech in the internet age are useless, due to
+the freedoms the internet age provides. New technologies make it
+increasingly difficult to prevent communication and transfer of
+capital between parties governments might wish to. Thereby, it may be
+of greater interest to encourage healthy use of the internet, rather
+than attempt to force it, when doing so is arguably impossible. 
 
 In the internet age, young people are very prominent users of
-technology [cite]. Yet, when learning that parents that are involved
+technology. Yet, when learning that parents that are involved
 in the technology industry, such as Steve Jobs limit their own
-children in their usage of technology [cite], it can come as a
-surprise to us. We should consider how we allow our children to use
-technology and make use of the freedoms it already provides and will
-seemingly continue to provide [@parenting], perhaps to an even greater
-extent. For governments attempting to promote ethical behaviour and
-enforce laws, attempted regulation of the freedoms that the internet
-provides may be fruitless or may have to be so draconian, as is
-visible in China [@bbc-moderation], that these very regulations are
-perhaps themselves deeply unethical. Thus, governments should consider
-instead promoting education on the use of technology.
+children in their usage of technology [@creators;@jobs-ipad], it can
+come as a surprise to us. We should consider how we allow our children
+to use technology and make use of the freedoms it already provides and
+will seemingly continue to provide [@parenting], perhaps to an even
+greater extent. For governments attempting to promote ethical
+behaviour and enforce laws, attempted regulation of the freedoms that
+the internet provides may be fruitless or may have to be so draconian,
+as is visible in China [@bbc-moderation], that these very regulations
+are perhaps themselves deeply unethical. Thus, governments should
+consider instead promoting education on the use of technology.
+
+Thus the internet offers freedom of speech that is closer to absolute
+freedom of speech than it would otherwise be in society. Although
+there do remain many limitations and potential for limitations, people
+remain keen to circumvent or prevent these limitations through
+technology and to limit freedom of speech is far more difficult than
+it would be without the internet. Thus we must reconsider what freedom
+of speech means. The internet gives it to us in a more genuine sense
+than may be present otherwise, and will likely continue to do so. Thus
+by reconsidering the nature of freedom of speech we can act
+accordingly and encourage use of the internet in a useful, productive,
+safe, and ethical way, particularly for young people. The limits of
+freedom of speech, are now set by the nature of the internet itself,
+and thereby by us. The true consideration is how much we value freedom
+of speech, as we can use the internet to further it as we have been
+and truly use it for the betterment of freedom for humanity.
+
 
 # References and bibliography
diff --git a/reference.bib b/reference.bib
index 2d62895..d05fc9b 100644
--- a/reference.bib
+++ b/reference.bib
@@ -76,4 +76,18 @@ InCollection{england-wales-crime,
 	edition      =	{{S}pring 2021},
 	publisher    =	{Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}
 }
+@article{twitter-mission,
+    title = "Why Twitter’s Mission Statement Matters",
+    author = "Justin Fox",
+    year = "2014",
+    journal = "Harvard Business Review",
+    url = "https://hbr.org/2014/11/why-twitters-mission-statement-matters"
+}
+@article{china-firewall,
+    title = "The great firewall of China: Xi Jinping’s internet shutdown",
+    author = "Elizabeth C Economy",
+    year = "2018",
+    journal = "The Guardian",
+    url = "https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/29/the-great-firewall-of-china-xi-jinpings-internet-shutdown"
+}