In today’s society, the issue of censoring certain information is a big deal, both politically and socially. In the Western world, while people criticize Hitler’s burning of books and China’s extreme government censorship, they also implement censorship of their own, often in the form of biased media, and blocking programs for schools, businesses, and homes. Because this issue is essential in the global drive for new information, it must be addressed to create a fine balance between citizen awareness and unsolicited activity. Thus, although governments should legally allow for most information to be readily spread, parents and supervisors should have the right to censor sensitive material for their children.
	Firstly, perspective one is a sensible option that logically addresses the problem of malware and inappropriate material that may be unwittingly accessed by any ten year old with a computer or electronic device. There are hundreds of blocking programs available for this reason, and as the internet becomes increasingly cluttered with the presence of harmful material, these programs have become increasingly popular. For example, the presence of highly illegal websites including the Silk Road, which often deal drugs, could obviously strongly negatively influence children who may not know the activities they're getting into. In addition, controversial and violent material on sites such as the ISIS website often targets the easily-manipulatable youth who may not know or care about the severity of their actions. Thus, it is in everyone’s best interests to prevent the access of this material. However, the one major downfall of parent censorship is the decision-making skills of the parents themselves. Many parents may misjudge the readiness of their children and over censor material, which does not prepare their children for the real world. There is a lot of potentially controversial material on the news, for example, and often times, children should be able to access that information in order to develop their own ideas and opinions about how society works. Even though blocking material for children is often the safest option, perfectly blocking all the correct things is impossible, and this may lead to a child that lacks specific critical thinking skills.
	On the other hand, perspective two argues for the complete freedom of information on the internet. Championed by major tech groups such as Anonymous, this information availability seems like a righteous cause, especially against oppressive governments that vigorously censor all negative information. Thus, when applied to countries such as China, North Korea, Eritrea, and Egypt, freedoms of press and speech seem like necessary options in order to aware citizens of the world around them. In addition, by allowing people to view both sides of the argument and not censoring any information, the government will encourage citizen participation, awareness, and even loyalty once citizens come to conclusions themselves. However, one flaw with this freedom is the inaccuracy of certain information. Information often can be made up or falsified, which has mislead people more than once. For example, the article on Rolling Stones, “A Rape on Campus,” triggered outrage at an event that never really happened. Because so many people are dedicated to awareness of information that otherwise might be hidden, they readily accept wrong information that is far more common than correct information.
	Similarly, the third perspective is beneficial in that citizens should be able to access information from any government or organization. Because of the spread of the internet and vigorous algorithms to create ads suited to a consumer's needs, it’s very viable that eventually there will be no concept of complete privacy in our lives. Instead of letting companies hoard this information, instead they should release it to the public. In addition, due to rivalries, such as the one between Google and Bing, search engines may censor out information that may benefit the other company. The elimination of this practice means a more free and trustworthy internet. However, the freedom of information must be compromised, and governments and organizations must censor certain data. For example, no government would appreciate the releasing of its top military information, and no consumer would want his or her data accessible to any potential criminal on the internet.
	Therefore, the optimal solution regarding censorship is to legally allow most information into the web. Because government secrets should be kept secret unless they violate international law or human rights, the government administrations should decide whether to censor that material. But, like in the case of Edward Snowden, The government should release information that may otherwise bring harm to citizens. In general, it should be the citizens themselves who choose what information of theirs they want released and collected, and it should be any organization’s duty to notify them of this information. This is the optimal solution because it provides a system where citizens can enjoy their privacy and access any other information. This should apply to children as well - parents should have the right to censor dangerous and illegal material, but beyond that, they too should be given access to all information to decide issues on their own. This would also give citizens critical thinking skills and allow them to discern the veracity of information.