Argument
against my position: The amount of
personal information that
individuals provide online allow criminals to increasingly
threaten and attack
their victims. Therefore, oversharing should be minimized so
criminals do not
use social media to their advantage.
Argument
#1: Limiting what individuals can say
online would be
unconstitutional and unhelpful.
If social
media was heavily monitored, then
this would limit an individual’s freedom of speech because
they would be unable
to express themselves properly. (Ashman et al., 2017)
It is
difficult to say what can or
cannot be shared online because there is no specific guide
that can distinguish
what is safe to mention. Furthermore, even if individuals
post pictures without
tagging the location, stalkers can still find out where they
are. (Ashman
et al., 2017)
Argument
#2: Increasing privacy protection
online would be more helpful
Identity
thieves are more likely to hack
an individual’s computer rather than researching their
social media account because
this is a quicker way to learn personal information. (”
Identity theft rises
sharply as fraudsters target social media”).
Even if an individual stops oversharing, there is
no guarantee that what they said in the past will not cause
them to be a target
in the future. Therefore, increasing privacy protection on an
individual’s
computer will not only protect them in the past but also in
the future. (Lallo,
2012).