In the article ‘Who’s the true enemy of internet freedom-China, Russia, or the US?’ -Morozov(2015), the author mentions that the US is the true enemy of internet freedom. The article shows that the US is the one who forces other countries like China and Russia to action when US internet territory is threatened. China and Russia try to control their citizens' internet accessibility by forcing browsers to change their internet services from US companies to their own country's companies. On the other hand, the US tries to control browser information on a global scale.
The article shows that although China and Russia take actions to limit browser accessibility and impose heavy restrictions on internet freedom, the author believes that the US is to be blamed for the actions.
Internet access has become a necessary tool in daily life in developed countries, meaning the whoever controls the internet may very well be the dominant power in the future. Hence, I think it is absolutely necessary for individual countries to actively defend their own internet freedoms.
The US has a big advantage in the internet game. As mentioned in the passage, much of the communication infrastructure is run by Silicon Village, not to mention the US ownership of most of the giant internet companies. Many of these companies are branched out to the whole world, and this builds up a hardware infrastructure that will prove hard to remove by the local government. Evidently, the US holds a vastly better hand compared to other countries. Let us think on a question: what if a country has the free access to all the data on internet, essentially run by its own country, and they decide to make full use of it?The damage that can be done will no doubt set a precedent for widespread chaos. No one can forget the Jasmine Revolution of 2010.
Hence, the measures undertaken by China and Russia in order to protect their online borders are very understandable. This is a war, and no one likes to lose in a war. Based on my understanding, the internet freedom that is mentioned here will no longer be the privacy of individual browsers, but the freedom of countries.
One man’s internet freedom is another man’s internet imperialism. Without the word of internet.This is the reason which always the reason to cause conflict, and I wholeheartedly agree with it. No matter with or without the word.
ReplyDeleteCitations are clearly stated, and summary carries an idea of the original article’s main idea, but can be made clearer. Explanations can also be made for certain claims. Transitions can also be improved. Text connections and evaluations can also help to improve the reader response. Paragraph 4 is quite messy, and could possibly be better arranged. There are good ideas and analysis,The thesis statement can be made clearer to the reader what the response is about. A few grammar mistakes here and there. Reporting verbs and connecting verbs could be better utilized.
content：
ReplyDelete1.In the summary part, I think it is not clear that the points are from the article. You may add in words like "the author mentions..."
2.For the transition paragraph, you should mention what your opinions are rather than repeating what the author says.
3.The essay is too short. Since there are only 403 words.
4. No one can forget the Jasmine Revolution of 2010.>>>>>It is good that you provide example to support your idea. However, it is better if you evaluate on this point.
Language
1.meaning the whoever controls the >>>>>meaning whoever controls the
2.what if a country has the free access to all the data on internet, essentially run by its own country, and they decide to make full use of it?>>>>and she decide
I think the sentence structure is also a bit weird.
3.Hence, the measures undertaken by China and Russia in >>> eliminate ‘hence’
I find your essay is generally fluent and it is interesting to read. I think you may consider to explain and evaluate more on the examples and stating your thesis more clearly.