So many people have become active on the internet that they now must be classified and defined as part of categories of individuals when we discuss social issues concerning the internet. There are most, who use their access to do business, whether personal or for profit. There are many who use the internet for education, to contribute content, and to communicate with others for official or legitimate purposes. There are those who use the internet to create problems. There are those who have problems with using the internet.
Restricting the use of the internet is then an issue of having a legitimate or reasonable reason for doing so. In the first situation that comes to mind, internet use for criminal purposes, there are sanctions against those who are caught doing so. Hackers and others who have caused trouble can be legally prohibited from using the internet. Prisoners are not allowed any access, but manage to have others do the access for them. Thus, restricting internet use on the basis of criminal activity is taken care of when law enforcement is capable of catching and incarcerating criminals.
But to broaden restrictions to whole communities or to non criminals would not only be unsuccessful, but would amount to oppression and injustice.
In a tie or close second are the very young who do not have the maturity, sophistication or thought process to stay out of trouble on line. There are those who are mentally ill or who have developed addictive processes to the point where they cannot complete the normal life functions of taking care of themselves or others. In other words, some individuals become so dysfunctional in their internet use that they cannot act in their own best interests. Addictions to pornography, gambling, gaming, and other pursuits were some of the first social problems to develop when the internet became widely accessible.
To generalize restrictions to larger populations who do not have serious addictions is not only impossible, but amounts to improper restrictions on freedom of speech, ability to engage in commerce, and other infringement on constitutional rights.
When it comes to restricting internet use because of economic and class issues, however, the process cheats the disadvantaged who will not be able to compete in the work, school and other environments where computer and internet savvy is essential. Restricting internet use for illegitimate reasons, such as to suppress free speech or to oppress whole populations is wrong and is never completely successful.
Restricting use by all because of inability to find and deal with wrongdoers, however, is punishing all for the acts of some. This would result in social turmoil, underground and resistance movements, and trouble for the economy, as people would inundate physical facilties that are now understaffed because on line activity reduced the need for human interaction.
It would be lovely to restrict the use of the internet by those who intend to do harm to our infrastructure, strategic and military, and economic engines, but that can only be done by agencies that can seek and find such individuals and organizations.
As a result, there are many situations where internet use should be restricted for the benefit of all because we are tied irrevocably to the internet in all aspects of our society, security, commerce, and culture, and there are those who want to cause great harm for a host of reasons. There are also individual situations where internet use has become a debilitating addiction and, like other debilitating and destructive addictions needs to be regulated or restricted for the well being of individuals and families. Finally much more restriction, supervision and control needs to be established in the home, when children have unlimited and unsupervised access to the internet.
But a general set of restrictions on internet use is not only wrong, it is impossible, given our world wide investment in the internet as a way of life.