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 whenever US internet space 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 by leveraging on it's considerable political and economical power over the rest of the world, in addition to the 'soft power' of US' pop culture themes.
The article shows that although China and Russia take actions to limit browser accessibility and impose heavy restrictions on internet freedom, ultimately the US is to be blamed for the implementation of these actions.
The article shows that although China and Russia take actions to limit browser accessibility and impose heavy restrictions on internet freedom, ultimately the US is to be blamed for the implementation of these actions.
Internet access has become a necessary tool for daily life in developed countries, and this means that whoever controls the internet may very well be the dominant power in the future. Hence, I think it is absolutely reasonable and in fact 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 the governing body decides 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 and its severe repercussions. Facebook, Twitter and their social media cousins, all of which belong to US companies, may not have been the direct cause of the revolution, but they definitely served an important role in accelerating the revolution.
The measures undertaken by China and Russia in order to protect their online borders are, in the wake of these considerations, very understandable. This is a war, and no one likes to lose in a war. Based on my understanding, the internet freedoms that are mentioned here no longer refer to the privacy of individual browsers, but the rather the collective online freedom of countries.
One man’s internet freedom is another man’s internet imperialism. This sentiment forms the basis of a great number of recent international conflicts, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.
ReplyDeleteThere is no citation of the original article as well as supporting examples (Jasmine Revolution).
Try to leave a line in between paragraphs and align the text.
Content:
1. Is the article to which a response is being crafted properly identified with citation information in the first sentence?
-There is a citation at the first sentence
2. By reading the summary, do you have a clear idea of the original article’s main claim?
- "in addition to the 'soft power' of US' pop culture themes. " not clear what you are referring to
"considerable political and economical power over the rest of the world" does not appear in the original article
4. Are these ‘main ideas’ of the article accurately paraphrased?
-Yes
6. Is there a clear transition sentence/paragraph from the opening summary to an
evaluation of/response to the ideas in the article?
-Yes
7. Does the writer (of the reader response) focus well on a specific aspect of the
article?
- Yes. But the organisation is poor
8. Is there a clear stand (or thesis) regarding some specific area of the original
article?
- Yes. You support China and Russia
9. Does the writer make text connections by clearly evaluating some aspect of the
original article text?
- In your own arguments, you did not refer back to the article.
10. Does the writer explain his/her reaction in a systematic analysis with clear
supports?
-First argument lack of support.
11. Are the writer’s opinions based on a clear connection between ideas in the original
article and the writer’s other reading and/or experience?
- You include other reading such as Jasmine Revolution.
Organization:
Is the writer’s thesis appropriate in relation to the summary?
-Yes.
Does the thesis contain a focused controlling idea?
-Yes.
Does the transition sentence/paragraph between the summary and the
response seem well connected to/cohesive with both?
-The paragraph after the summary may not be necessary. It is repeating the summary.
Do the supporting ideas in the response seem well connected with the thesis?
-Yes.
Are the supporting ideas well connected to each other?
-Yes.
Language Use:
The article shows that the US is the one who forces other countries like China and Russia to action whenever US internet space is threatened. (whenever US threatens internet space)
Internet access has become a necessary tool for daily life in developed countries (for daily life)
defend their own internet freedoms (freedom)
what if a country has the free access to all the data on internet (has free access)
the internet freedoms that are mentioned here (the internet freedom that is mentioned here)
what if a country has the free access to all the data on internet, essentially run by its own country, and the governing body decides to make full use of it? (make it more concise)
but the rather the collective online freedom of countries. (but rather the)
Done by Lanxin and Yanjing
DeleteThank you, Yuxi, for this effort. My first impression is that your formatting is a distraction. You are an engineering student, so I would expect you to be able to find a way to correct this problem. I can imagine that you would have to copy your text on a word document, correct the margin errors, and then open a new post, perhaps all the while using a different browser (try Chrome).
ReplyDeleteAs for your reader response's development, your peers have given useful feedback. To me the summary is a fairly accurate, but some of the paraphrasing seems loose. Take this sentence as an example:
...the US is the one who forces other countries like China and Russia to action whenever US internet space is threatened. >>> I'm not sure what is meant by "to action." And what is meant by "whenever US internet space is threatened"?
Also, what is meant by "the 'soft power' of US' pop culture themes" in the context of your last sentence?
I appreciate your response's political focus. However, it isn't clear to me what your thesis is:
1) ...it is absolutely reasonable and in fact necessary for individual countries to actively defend their own internet freedoms. (You don't need the "I think" that precedes that clause.)
2) One man’s internet freedom is another man’s internet imperialism.
Whatever your thesis may be, it needs to be more clearly supported by evidence throughout the essay. You present some information about various countries vying for "control" but not about their acting on/defending "freedom."
Perhaps your thesis can be clarified.
--- it's > its (Do you know the difference?)
--- the Jasmine revolution >> explain
--- This question could be presented as an assertion that you then support: "what if a country has the free access to all the data on internet, essentially run by its own country, and the governing body decides to make full use of it?"
--- And as your peers mentioned, I don't see any use of citations!
I look forward to your next draft.