2022论文代写淘宝critically thinking essay 指导要求
critically thinking essay 指导要求
状态介绍：就读澳洲一流大学附属的语言学校，要求完成一篇1500字的essay（要求与将来IT master相关的）. 重点是考查你的英语写作能力，critically thinking, 和 引用reference.
写作语言要求：Objectivity, complexity, formality, explicitness, hedging, responsibility（具体见附件照片）
Reference: 使用Harvard格式：至少提供7个reference。Reference 不能使用.com上下载的材料。
论文题目：Government officials, IT specialists and other concerned parties claimed that the filtering technology can（is the best way to implemented in school and at home to） protect children from accessing offensive online material such as Pornographic and violent material. Do you agree? Support your argument with evidence.
写作要求： 重点是critically thinking (具体见范文)
Government officials, IT specialists and other concerned parties claimed that the filtering technology can（is the best way to implemented in school and at home to） protect children from accessing offensive online material such as Pornographic and violent material. Do you agree? Support your argument with evidence.
In the contemporary society, the Internet plays an increasing crucial role in every fields of society. The reason is that the ubiquitous Internet provides a considerable amount of information, entertainment and communication for people. However, a major issue has been intense discussed in the Internet that is flooded into enormous objectionable information such as bad language, sexual explicitness and violent content, which jeopardizes seriously the children physical and mental development. Therefore, some government officials, IT specialists and other concerned parties claim that the adoption of filtering technology provides the optimal protection for children from accessing offensive online materials. However, the possibility of negative effects should be examined. The aim of this essay is to argue validity and feasibility of internet filtering and meanwhile consider another better solution. This will be supported from three aspects: the possibility of failure to filter objectionable information, the inflexibility for school as well as parents owing to unapparent filtering rule and the education of children in media literacy. (162)
According to Di Nome, the filtering system is described as adopting technological measure to scan and filter internet contents for pornography, hate speech, violence and other materials deemed inappropriate（cited in Gehman et al, 2003）In terms of the different uses of the filtering system, it can be categorized as the local software on users’ computers, or the censorship list in ISPs service terminal. Search engines even can contain filtering system to design children-orientated version to hinder illegal information. Nevertheless, no matter which types of the filtering system, they are generally based on URL filtering and keyword filtering (Flood & Hamilton 2003).#p#分页标题#e#
Therefore, one extensive criticism for filtering systems has been focused on its URL-based filtering and keyword-based filtering resulting in failure and incorrect blocking. The major drawback for keyword-based filters is argued that it over blocks a large amount of the benign information. Spear (1999) claims “the keyword filters are most unsophisticated filtering devices”. This methodology only compares the text of web pages to a list of offending words or phrases and then removes the words from the page or blocks the objectionable pages. Consequently, some legitimate sites may be blocked due to the occurrence of filter-sensitive words or phrases. For instance, based-keyword strategy filter the word “sex” to prevents enormous pornographic sites, whereas at the same time it also blocks sites providing beneficial information about musical sextets, Essex, safer sex, sexual orientation, including the web site of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network… (Rosenberg, 2001). Furthermore, any sites on the internet which related to free speech issues are very like to be restricted because they will of necessity contain deemed-objectionable words. An example offered by Rosenberg is that the American Civil Liberties Union has been blocked by many filtering software (Rosenberg, 2001). URL-based filtering is deemed more accurate technology than keyword-based filtering in many situations. As it uses automatic web crawlers to search for pages with “suspicious” content, human reviewers then review each page and set blocked websites (Rosenberg, 2001). However, one remarkable problem is pointed out by Spear (1999); he comments that URL-based filtering is a totally based-individual standpoint filter. Designers determine the type of sites that could be block in the light of their own subject perspective, majority of who lack a background in library science (Spear, 1999). Moreover, there are tremendous sites on the internet and many pages are updated everyday. The URL-based filtering technology is like to result in under block some offensive contents due to inability of affording real-time protection. (315)
These who support filtering system assert that although filters system could incorrectly block benign contents, it greatly contribution to block large percentages of objectionable web content. They quotes that the American courts adopt internet filtering software as an “equally effective” but “less restrictive alternative” way to keep the internet a safe place for children instead of criminalizing internet content. (Cited in Hunter, 2000)
However, this claim is unwarranted due to lacking enough evidence. Hunter in his article “Internet Filter Effectiveness: Testing Over and Underinclusive Blocking Decisions of FOUR popular filters” question this proposal and test the four popular filters. He finds out that “filters fail to block objectionable content 25 percent of the time, while on the other hand, they improperly block 21 percent of benign conent.” It means that filtering system result in nearly 50% uncorrect.#p#分页标题#e#As hunter says “just imagine the outrage if your local library incorrectly removed 21 percent of its books, and then gave no explanation for their removal, nor made public the book title removed. This is exactly the reality created by the filters reviewed above”.
The second reason for against filtering system is that unapparent filtering rule result in school failure incorporate internet into schooling.(reason—situation —-effect)the filtering company constitute filtering list and determine what is and is not blocked in lights of their principal. And most companies keep their filtering list as a commercial secret and refuse to disclose to customers. Even though some general criteria filer rules are provided with customers to select blocking sites, the actual sites are not given. Customers hard to change if they found legal content is filtered by filtering software companies.Therefore, Using filtering software without knowing what sites are blocked and which are not, puts schools in the position of unintentionally censoring materials which are constitutionally protected. An example of schools which have put great restrictions on internet access is in Santa Ana, California. Students and employees alike are restricted, not only from obvious sites which contain pornography and hate, but also from sites associated with sports, finance and entertainment. Bob Halford, a graphic arts teacher, asked “why is it my students can get to the Catholic Church’s site, but they can’t read stories in USA today?”This is a frustrating situation for teachers who are trying to incorporate the internet into their teaching. Although staff can get access to some blocked sites, they must first file a request with their school principal. The principal then reviews the site and, if he or she approves, sends the request to district offices, Administrators then take a look and make a final decision. The final decision about what is blocked is made by a few people. This restrictive policy is pitting educators’ desires to help make students internet-savvy against the nees to block material which is not inappropriate (Huffstutter). Furthermore, thr filtering software also makes no distinction of what is appropriate for different aged students. It is a “one-size fits all” proposition with schools naturally choosing protection.
Therefore, if the filtering system prevent the internet bring to school benefits, maybe best solution to safe students is unaccess to internet at school, rather than spending a large amount of money to install unuseful filtering system. If kids want to see something-entertainment, sports ,porn, whatever-they’re going figure out a way to circumnavigate the filter. Recently the report that the children use proxy and tunnel to Filters may also increase liability by claiming that they can keep students out of objectionable sites when in fact there is no way to guarantee that. If students are able to access inappropriate materials while filters are in place, parents are able to make the argument that the schools have broken their trust. Filters are not one-hundred percent effective and schools should not believe that filters will keep them from legal problems.#p#分页标题#e#
These arguments suggest that school must be search for other method to prevent students from objectionable information on the internet. Some educational philosophy are now putting forward to a new measure – connection the correct internet behavior with sexual education.As Guevara relates,”classroom teachers are the instructional filters.” This implies that teachers are best judges of what is appropriate in any given situation.
Clearly it would be difficult for any generic software program to take into consideration all of the variables necessary to decide what content should and should not be accessed.
1.failure to filter offensive information2.unapparent filtering rule resulting in inflexibility to changing options for school3.incorporation of the sexual education
Argument 1: outline idea:Main idea: one of main cause for against filtering system is that many evidence shows that it is failure to block objectionable information for children.first reason: under block:Form book: 1.some author say something 2. Statistics show that somethingSecond reason: over block Some beneficial contents can not be identified according to based content filtering. Confusion to Distinguish between beneficial information and offensive information.1.Evidence show that something2.some people complaint something.
Critically think: some proponent and software company –(opponent) claims that although filtering can not simply block offensive information such as pornography, hate, violence, their block majority of detrimental content for children. My opinion (argue opinion above) this is totally subtle idea Citing some author idea: “ compared with library , if you a quarter of material in the library is unavailable”Additional : they block the all information that include illegal key-word, whereas more information is educate children to not access illegal content. If it is block cons and pros information= lack relevant education for education. Children is so curious that they still other way to have access to illegal information. Recently some technology such as : proxy software, turning –protocol
Argument 2: unapparent filtering rule result in inflexibility to amend option for school/Topic sentence: Cause:1.filtering rule as commercial secrete be protected by corporations.Cite the author say2.in some countries, government decide filtering content to control idea.Cite the author say
Effect: teacher is unavailable to use internet as schooling, because it is too limitation.Example:Critical thinking: if the filtering system affect regular teaching plan or limitation to internet benefits for students. Some school can offer safer prevention to deny access to internet, rather than taking filtering software,.#p#分页标题#e#
Argument 3: education program more effective against pornographyThe principal advantages for social and educational strategies is that they can encourage students moral and ethnical development and resilience, they are more effective than technological solution in long term, they minimize the effective effects if they occur.
Gehman A, Phinizy L & Rodriguez D 2003, The Effects of Internet Filtering Upon User Satisfaction in Searches Conducted in the Charleston County Public Library, Midnet, accessed 29 November 2008,<http://www.midnet.sc.edu/cottontown/davidrod/internet.pdf>
Flood, M & Hamilton, C 2003, Regulating Youth Access to Pornography, Sexual Integrity Forum, accessed 5 December 2008, < http://www.sif.org.au/regulatingporn.pdf>
Spear, J 1999, ‘How Filtering software Impacts Our Schools’, Access Denied, Issue 2, accessed 20 November 2008,< http://www.glaad.org/access9112.pdf>
Rosenberg, R 2001, ‘Controlling access to the Internet: The role of filtering’, Ethics and Information Technology, Vol.3, no.1, pp. 35-54, accessed 23 November 2008 from SpringerLink Database, ISSN: 1572-8439.
Hunter, C 2000, ‘Internet Filter Effectiveness: Testing Over and Underinclusive Blocking Decision of Four Popular Filters’, Computers, Freedom and Privacy, pp. 287-294, accessed 4 November 2008 from Portal Database, ISSN: 1-58113-256-5