In light of last week’s explosion of hate commenced by an anti-Islamic video, Somini Sengupta questions if companies are responsible for what appears on the Internet. It is a heated discussion, whether powerful companies like Google and Facebook should be more thorough in their oversight of what expression is permitted on their site. After the “incendiary anti-Islamic video posted on Youtube”, the discussion of what these companies should restrict is brought to attention again. Some people say anything on the Internet is a form of free speech and should be allowed, but others say there should be more restriction and more definition of what “hate speech” is. In the “Age of Youtube”, society is finding it a challenge to regulate what is voiced on the Internet, and how “speech articulated in one part of the world can spark mayhem in another”.

-This has a good introduction. I think the first sentence is interesting enough for the reader to be grabbed to attention.

-I should have introduced Sengupta, and how she is credible to the discussion.

-Good use of quotes, definitely works well with context of the sentence.

-Nice thesis, it articulates the point of the article, without leaning to either side of the opinion.

In her essay, Sengupta mainly discusses the various viewpoints of people educated in the field of public speech, and how the powerful companies of the Internet handle what is expressed on the Web. She articulates just how difficult it is for such companies to regulate what is shown on their associations. She says, “Google, Facebook, and Twitter receive hundreds of thousands of complaints about content every week”. It is a much more daunting task to oversee everything on the Web than most people would think. In some cases, like the most recent, dealing with the anti-Islamic video, companies will take action to take the said aversion down. Google deemed it appropriate to restrict access of the video in some countries, because of the extreme bloodshed after the release of the video. Technically, the video did not meet Google’s definition of hate speech, but after the violence that occurred because of the video, it was restricted in countries like Egypt and Libya.

-Good job of describing the context of the essay.

-I think I could have used a couple more quotes to describe the author’s reporting.

-I did I good job here relaying the facts to my reader. There really isn’t any indication of my opinion on the matter.

 Another aspect of Sengupta’s essay is asking what is defined to be hate speech. She reports that “YouTube prohibits hate speech, which it defines as that which “attacks or demeans a group” based on its race, religion, and so on; Facebook’s hate speech ban likewise cover “content that attacks people” on the basis of identity.” A person may think it would be simple to regulate what content on the Internet is demeaning or aggressive towards a group of people, but it is actually extraordinarily challenging. Legal scholars say, “It is exceedingly difficult to devise a universal definition of hate speech”. This is a valid point, considering how different speech laws are around the world. For instance, it is not against the law in The United States to disrespect Jesus, but in Saudi Arabia, it is strictly illegal to discriminate against Muhammad. It may be impossible to define what hate speech is, and how powerful Internet companies should discern what information should be allowed online, because the Internet is such a broad space, that reaches so many different types of people.

-Again, I did a good job reporting the facts in this essay. There was not supposed to be much emotion or personality within the writing, just reporting of an article.

-I could have described who the “legal scholars” were.

-Good comparison here, comparing the United States’ laws to ones of Saudi Arabia.

        Sengupta makes her argument by addressing several experts in the field of free speech to strengthen her essay. Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor, says, “We are just awakening to the need for some scrutiny or oversight or public attention to the decisions of the most powerful private speech controllers”. He thinks highly of Google in their decision to restrict the video in some countries. Mr. Wu actually thinks Google should “set up an oversight board of regional experts or serious YouTube users from around the world to make especially tough decisions.” Another source Sengupta uses is Susan Benesch, who studies hate speech that incites violence. Benesch says Google and Facebook “certainty don’t have to” educate users about offensive content. This is in response to Google’s occasional effort to educate by expressing their position on touchy topics. One last reference Sengupta uses is Shibley Telhami, a political scientist at the University of Maryland. Telhami “had hoped the violence over the video would encourage a nuanced conversation about how to safeguard free expression with other values, like public safety.” Telhami makes a point saying, “It’s really about at what point does speech becomes actions; that’s a boundary that becomes difficult to draw, and it’s a slippery slope.” Sengupta utilizes these three resources very effectively to enhance her argument.

-Here, I am describing how Sengupta makes here argument.

-I did a good job of describing the people Sengupta uses in her article.

-Explaining the text to the reader, in context to the subject.

-Utilizing the text to make a point.

The intended audience for this argumentative essay is any New York Times reader who is interested in the digital age of expression. People involved in such Internet companies like Google and Facebook should also read this article. This essay should also reach those involved in the Government. The question of who should regulate the Internet can definitely be political. Should it be the responsibility of Google or the Government to decide what is permitted on the Web? This is a question lawmakers and people involved in free speech should assess, in order to better define and understand hate speech, and to find a way to regulate the Internet without disregarding free speech.

-Here I am explaining who the audience is for the essay.

-Here I am addressing my personal opinion. Usually this is not acceptable in an analysis, but I think it works well here.

 This article is a good read for the ordinary citizen, because it gives her an insight to something that she normally wouldn’t have known about. It is beneficial for people of all societies to educate themselves of the different expressions of speech, whether it is on the Web or in print. The World is a constantly changing place, and is currently taking on the ways of social expression on the Internet. There is no easy way of regulating what appears on the Internet, because free speech is a right that cannot be taken away from the people. Internet companies should take the lead, rather than the Government, in controlling what is projected on the Web. This argument adds to the larger problem assessing how society will manage the new changes of expression in the World. 

-Finishing thoughts. It is beneficial for all people to read articles like this, to stay informed on this happening in the world.

-I like this conclusion. I address the larger problem of how society will manage new changes in the world. Overall, I liked this textual analysis. I think I did a good job expressing the facts, without too much opinion.