Across the world, government officials have the choice to either censor websites deemed unsuitable for citizens or allow access to any website available online. Unfortunately, it is very common for government officials to block access to individual websites and social media platforms of their choice. These certain government officials should not have the authority to block access to websites deemed inappropriate or unsuitable due to silencing of the oppressed, violation of free speech, and general political bias. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Oppression is virtually everywhere, and many victims of such oppression continually struggle to make their voices heard, especially online. Among the victims are "Moroccan atheists, women discussing online harassment, advertisements with crucifixes, black and Muslim activists reposting racist messages received, trans models, drag artists, indigenous women, images of childbirth, photos of breastfeeding." Ultimately, this government wants to uphold certain ideals and wants to show its citizens only one perspective of everything. This creates human rights violations and leads to unfair treatment for people deemed “inappropriate.” Now, these governments should intervene when necessary, for example whenever they threaten to cause harm to another individual. One way this can be done simply is through moderation. “…we are concerned about how platforms are responding to new pressures. Not because there is a slippery slope from judicious moderation to active censorship, but because we are already very far down that slope.” The government can't tell the difference between this, because it's easier to censor. The easy way is not always the right way. There needs to be more conversation and understanding to find a middle ground. Furthermore, by locking people out, they deprive themselves of their inalienable rights, as stated in the First Amendments. This is currently being experimented on large platforms such as Youtube. YouTube users are quick to point this out: “When YouTube, Facebook or Twitter repress some form of expression – conspiracy theories, extremist rants, terrorist propaganda – some of the targets inevitably complain that their free speech is under attack.” Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Overall, since everyone can see censorship on big platforms, this means that censorship has been normalized. If the government censors what it has chosen, it presents people with a false dichotomy. People are presented with a false dichotomy, because the government presents you with two solutions or two sides of a problem, whenever there may be a middle ground. Instead, the government chooses to censor and eliminate this middle ground, silencing the weak. The weak who are silenced have their rights violated under the law. Every time the government allows the other side's speech, it allows the most radical form of it so that people don't rationalize the other side correctly. They radicalize the other side and make you lean towards the side they want. The government is doing something even worse: it is changing your vision to secure what it wants. This causes people to change their political views.