![[I*EARN]](../iearnlogotiny.gif)
(written by iearn@iearn.org, 03/22/1996)
/* Written 12:06 PM Feb 2, 1996 by coldspring in igc:iearn.tc */ I have indeed seen signs of prejudice AND hate mail over the Internet. I have, in fact, myself received some rather "angry" mail. However, hate mail and prejudice are not things that the Internet should be faulted for. In fact, the Internet serves in a large way to dispel prejudice's ugly face. The ability to peacefully debate, as well as to change one's own identity, enables one to not only debate regarding prejudicial topics without risk, it also allows one to in effect become "another person" online, assuming a "virtual persona." Prejudice and hate mail are largely present outside of the Internet, and are terrible things which have existed for many hundreds of years. I find it preposterous that the Internet would be faulted for the prejudicial material that may or may not be propagated on it by its users. There is simply very little (if anything at all) that can be done about this (as there is little that can be done about it in "real life"). Pornography on the Internet is one of the most touchy issues regarding "cyberspace." I have heard of, seen, and (by a mailing list mishap) been sent pornography via the Internet. Indeed, while I agree that 10 year olds should not be able to see such material, the outright ban of its presence on the Internet would be tyrannical. Why is there all this hubbub about pornography on the Internet, when it is EASIER for a child to get pornographic material from a deviant street vendor? I actually attempted to find pornography on the World Wide Web once, and found it very difficult. To top this off, there are many applications available to parents to enact a censoring of the 'Net in their household. A company called SurfNet has an application one can download from the Internet that blocks out any Internet areas with "questionable material." There is no need for an all-encompassing ban of pornographic material on the Internet when parents can take such measures. With something like SurfNet active, it would become nearly impossible for a child to find pornography on the Internet. In order to determine how the "abuse" of the Internet should be handled, one must first define "abuse." If we are speaking of commercial software being transferred across the Internet, there are many ways that companies can protect their software from being "pirated," and some companies have already taken this course (Microsoft, for example, has very effectively protected their much sought after Windows 95). As far as the propagation of pornography on the Internet, I feel that more companies such as SurfNet should make their protective applications more easily available to the public, and that parents should be educated as to how to block pornographic material on the 'Net if their child is online. I don't think a ban should be enacted -- such would be excessive. Anything defined as "illegal" (child pornography) should be the responsibility of the police. If it is not illegal, it should not be censored. Different people have different interests, and just because the masses deem some interests as reprehensible is not a good basis for the eradication of these interests. Besides, if a pedophiliac cannot get his feelings out through harmless activities on the Internet, doesn't it seem logical that he would then proceed to use the real world as an outlet? I do feel that for the moment the Internet is far more easily accessed by those in the middle and upper classes (those with sufficient money). I do not think this will be the case in the future. I believe Internet access will be somewhat like the television, radio, telephone, toilets, and all other household items now deemed "essential." Each of these, upon introduction, were only found in the houses of the upper classes -- those who could afford them. Now, it would be rather difficult to find a house or school or building without a toilet. The Internet will eventually find its way into the houses of the majority. I feel the most important advantages of the Internet lay in its effect on communication. For now, the Internet represents the largest single information resource in the world. This cannot be denied -- there is no library or vault which contains more raw information than the Internet. Furthermore, people can communicate in ways which could never previously be achieved. You can very easily have a discussion (as we are) with multiple people from very different backgrounds and lives, getting multiple opinions. Furthermore, the Internet will one day evolve into the "information superhighway." This will revolutionalize life the same way the telephone did. I fully believe we will begin to see these effects within the next decade. Our lives will undoubtedbly be made easier. I don't believe school will ever be fully conducted in cyberspace. People who have the paranoid belief that schools and libraries and supermarkets will someday be replaced by the Internet are dead wrong. I myself could never read a book on a computer. Furthermore, libraries serve as a social group or gathering place -- something which simply can never be replaced. It's human nature! And the Internet will never (at least, not for a loooong time) be able to replace the ability to squeeze a piece of fruit at a supermarket to determine its worth. As far as school, the only advantages I can see in a "virtual cyberschool" would be the ability to connect people from all over the world in the same classroom. While this presents interesting ideas, the concept would fail just as many utopian concepts fail -- it fails to account for human nature. People need to have some semblance of tangibility in their classwork. Furthermore, how would a teacher ever be able to maintain control over a bunch of random kids at computer screens? Anyway, I believe that eventually the Internet will play a crucial role in the classroom, but that it will never replace the classroom. I would wselcome any responses to anything I have said above, B.C. Nelson - grade 12 Cold Spring Harbor, New York