Please asses my writing task 2

[firefox2020]

Some hold the view that ideas and information should be completely open, and there should be no control on what people can read and watch in the media (TV, Newspapers, Internet).
Do you agree with this view, or do you think that in some circumstances governments should limit the freedom of the media?
=============================================================================

In today’s world, mass media has an inevitable role in raising people’s awareness on current affairs across the globe. While some argue that information accessibility should not be restricted at all, I believe that governments should limit access to internet content in particular cases.

On the one hand, accessing to free flow of information is definitely one of the major rights of humans throughout the world. People must have the freedom to become aware about the political and economic issues in their countries. If media were limited, a large proportion of events would not be published, and as a consequence people would not be informed about the current issues. In lack of the free mass media, politicians will be able to hide their activities from people and this often ultimately leads to corruption in different levels of governments.

However, it is agreed that virtual content can be harmful to people in some circumstances. For example, currently plenty of p0rn sites which offer unethical contents are easily accessible on the internet. These contents could be harmful to children’s mental well-being and should be banned by parents and governments. Unfortunately, most of the parents are not aware about the negative implications which exposing to such contents can have on their children, and thus they don’t limit the access to these websites on their personal computers. The answer is for the governments to establish filtering systems in order to prohibit access to such detrimental web sites. Moreover, these days internet is being used as a medium for sharing copyrighted items such as books and films. Limiting access to web sites which share these contents is essential, because sharing such items free can cause a financial loss to their producers.

In conclusion, based on the given arguments, while I believe that free flow of information should be ensured, it seems reasonable to put some limitations on the virtual contents’ availability.

[David.IELTS.Examiner]

Hello!

The second main paragraph is much longer than the first.

Sometimes, the way you express your points is unclear. "These contents could be harmful ..." (main paragraph 2) So, do you mean that ANYTHING that could be harmful must be banned from the internet? Because that pretty much covers everything. If you go online and listen to Democrats in the USA, anything Trump says is harmful, so where does that leave "people would not be informed about the current issues" (main paragraph 1)?

Who decides what is harmful? Pornography is not harmful to everyone. If we let ISIS decide what is harmful, then we will have beheadings on the internet, but not cute puppy videos.

Vocabulary is good, but not well-used to create a good argument. There is a good range of grammatical structures and not many mistakes, at least not many that cause comprehension problems for the reader.

All the best,
David

[Flick]

Some hold the view that ideas and information should be completely open, and there should be no control on what people can read and watch in the media (TV, Newspapers, Internet).
Do you agree with this view, or do you think that in some circumstances governments should limit the freedom of the media?
=============================================================================

In today’s world, mass media has an inevitable role in raising people’s awareness on current affairs across the globe. While some argue that information accessibility should not be restricted at all, I believe that governments should limit access to internet content in particular cases.

On the one hand, accessing the free flow of information is definitely one of the major rights of humans throughout the world. People must have the freedom to learn about the political and economic issues in their countries. If media were limited, a large proportion of events would not be published, and as a consequence, people would not be informed about current issues. With no free mass media, politicians would be able to hide their activities from people and this often ultimately leads to corruption at all levels of governments.

However, it is agreed that virtual content can be harmful to people in some circumstances. For example, there are many p0rn sites which offer unethical contents and are easily accessible on the internet. This content could be harmful to children’s mental well-being and should be banned by parents and governments. Unfortunately, many parents are not aware of the negative implications which exposure to such contents can have on their children, and thus they don’t limit access to these websites on their personal computers. The answer is for governments to establish filtering systems in order to prohibit access to such detrimental web sites. Moreover, these days the internet is being used as a medium for sharing copyrighted items such as books and films. Limiting access to web sites which share these contents is essential, because sharing such items can cause a financial loss to their producers.

In conclusion, based on the given arguments, while I believe that the free flow of information should be ensured, it seems reasonable to put some limitations on the virtual contents’ availability.