inductive or deductive argument strategy

Instructions:

In your previous discussion and this week’s text reading assignment, you have learned more about inductive and deductive reasoning. You have also been introduced to varying perspectives on the free speech debate, and it’s time to consider your own perspective.

Using an inductive or deductive argument strategy, compose a paragraph or two in which you argue a unique point about free speech as it relates to a social media platform of your choice (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, or other relevant platform). More specifically, in this paragraph (or paragraphs), you should state an arguable claim, defend it with support (evidence: facts, observations, or expert opinion), and end on a conclusive note.

If you are struggling to identify a topic, you could use the following for inspiration: online hate speech, dark comedy, threats of violence, political agenda, fake news, cyberbullying, or anonymity (among others). This story about a famous “social media fail” might inspire your ideas too. Kendall Jones became headlines news when she posted photos of her hunts on Facebook for the public to see, and she received some serious backlash as a result.

As always, if you use an outside source to support your claim, please cite it in a Works Cited page.

Your paragraph(s) should be at least 300 words long.

ANSWER

When it comes to social media, my argument applies a deductive reasoning where I suppose that social media is an extension of our offline society. This means that the rules, laws and values that govern our societies should be carried along to social media as well. Say for instance, a platform like twitter and an issue like cyberbullying. In the streets, bullies both children and adults face the consequence of their actions from authorities. It is not an allowed method of relation to each other and neither should it be allowed online. Most people hide behind pseudonyms and use hurtful words and pictures to undermine others and in my opinion, these are acts that should be allowed in a court of law. However, the biggest issue is that social media unlike societies have no geographical boundaries and therefore finding jurisdiction becomes a legal nightmare. Maybe our societies have evolved and it now time for our government and justice systems to evolve and match up. This means a planetary judicial system that has global jurisdiction and a human rights constitution that takes care of every individual both online and offline. This may sound far fetch but the internet is barely thirty years old and already the difference it has instigated to our race is of such magnitude. Who knows what could happen in the next thirty years? There is even talk of artificially intelligent systems capable of reasoning and behaving like human beings, what about then? Are we still going to have laws with geographical limitations when such a system could very well determine the direction of the entire human race? Such questions develop the idea that our societies too much evolve, adapt and become more than they are now to cater for issues such as cyberbullying on Twitter.