The article made me perceive the position of absolute freedom of speech in the Internet media from a dual perspective. Blind posting is a phenomenon that can only emerge in the age of internet anonymity and messaging boards. Blind posts, as a result, gain meaning not only as obscene and frivolous comments left by anonymous people, but also as comments that are blind in the sense of insensitivity. In fact, insensitivity on the Internet and its manifestation take away attention from valuable takes because their scandalousness is incapable of not focusing attention on itself. Therefore, media outlets should moderate posts on the basis of meaningfulness and ethics, and remove them if they obviously speculate on the tragedy. This desire for quick attention is the creation of information noise, distracting from the user to form their own and independent opinion based on a comparison of various theses.
Anonymity is a way to ensure freedom of expression and should therefore be preserved. At the same time, people using their own name can receive additional privileges allowing their posts to be more visible. For example, this can be achieved by authorizing legal usernames using a checkmark. The “cheap shots” that the author is writing about really prove to be an effective way to destroy any serious discussion on the Internet (Dyer, 2009). However, this does not mean that comments in the media should be closed, rather, they should be edited according to the principle of combating extremism. Comments under the news are a way to see a real cross section of public opinion and show multiple perspectives on one situation. This multiplicity of viewpoints highlights the importance of democratic discussion, but its quality should not be polluted by posts that are outright trolling and demand negative attention.
Reference
Dyer, B. (2009). Blind posts on our site not gospel. Ohio.com. Web.