Some people feel that websites which allow users to upload content should have rules about what is allowed. Fake news or offensive content should be banned because children might see it. Others feel that their must be freedom of expression and anything that is uploaded has value. They believe that parents have the responsibility to make and enforce rules about what their children are allowed to see.

What is your opinion on this?


Opinions are diverged on the enactment of rules concerning the content of what is uploaded on widely accessible websites. Many aver that inauthentic news, barbaric or salacious content should be prohibited as young minds may get access to it. Others believe that people should be given latitude to express themselves freely on virtual platforms and each uploaded post has its value. Those supporting the latter view feel that the oner is on parents to supervise what their children see on such platforms. In my opinion, online platforms would be blameworthy if they delivered unreliable information or offensive content to users, and parents should shoulder the responsibility to supervise how their children use online websites.

On the one hand, there would be two primary reasons for the prohibition of the delivery of fake news and offensive content. First, inauthentic news reports can engender alarmist fear or delusions of real-life situations among people, exerting a negative impact on their lives. If people were exposed to a concocted news report about a serious perpetrator in their neighborhood, for example, it would indubitably make them reluctant to go out due to their fear of being attacked or murdered. Consequently, tension can engulf them every day, which can negatively affect their mentality. However, were people to get access to another concocted news report about depreciating prices of the housing market but they are effectively appreciating, people would make a false judgement about this situation. This may lead people to make misguided decisions to buy a new house, which can exert an adverse impact on their finance. Second, salacious and barbaric content may degrade the morals of society, especially the young generations. As a majority of the young generations tend to champion novel or alien ideas, whether they be morally acceptable or not, they may find such content interesting and ' fashionable '. As a result, it is not uncommon to hear vile epithet or find lascivious topics in the talks of the young.

On the other hand, cultural diversity would underpin the claim that users of websites should be given freedom of expression and each uploaded post has a distinct value. In many countries with strict moral systems such as Vietnam, nudity is a symbol of lust and illiteracy. However, in Greek and Roman sculptures, the greatest artworks were of the human body, both male and female. Likewise, nudists also find it more comfortable to be undressed, hence considering public nudity morally acceptable.

Although I believe that hollow or barbaric content should be banned, this indeed seems to be well-nigh impossible owning to counterarguments. Therefore, I would affirm that parents should hold responsible for controlling how their children use virtual websites. It is because children cannot afford to buy their smartphones or laptops on their own. Therefore, young minds need to seek their parents' permission to use their smartphones. If parents do not want their offspring to be exposed to harmful content on online platforms, they can ban their children's use of smartphones. Otherwise, parents can also allow their children to use these devices only in the presence of adults. Only by these ways can parents prevent their children from getting access to incongruous content on online platforms, and there may be no intervention of such platforms.

In conclusion, I would reaffirm that hollow or barbaric content on online websites should be banned as it can exert an injurious impact on individuals and society as a whole. However, the prohibition of such content may be unsuccessful due to cultural diversity; therefore, parents should take full responsibility to control the way their children use online platforms.

I have corrected a mistake in my previous essay. Here is the self-corrected one. Please ignore my first post and check this one!!!!

Some people feel that websites which allow users to upload content should have rules about what is allowed. Fake news or offensive content should be banned because children might see it. Others feel that their must be freedom of expression and anything that is uploaded has value. They believe that parents have the responsibility to make and enforce rules about what their children are allowed to see.

What is your opinion on this?


Opinions diverge greatly on the enactment of rules concerning the content of what is uploaded on widely accessible websites. Many aver that inauthentic news, barbaric or salacious content should be prohibited as young minds may get access to it. Others believe that people should be given latitude to express themselves freely on virtual platforms and each uploaded post has its value. Those supporting the latter view feel that the oner is on parents to supervise what their children see on such platforms. In my opinion, online platforms would be blameworthy if they delivered unreliable information or offensive content to users, and parents should shoulder the responsibility to supervise how their children use online websites.

On the one hand, there would be two primary reasons for the prohibition of the delivery of fake news and offensive content. First, inauthentic news reports can engender alarmist fear or delusions of real-life situations among people, exerting a negative impact on their lives. If people were exposed to a concocted news report about a serious perpetrator in their neighborhood, for example, it would indubitably make them reluctant to go out due to their fear of being attacked or murdered. Consequently, tension can engulf them every day, which can negatively affect their mentality. However, were people to get access to another concocted news report about depreciating prices of the housing market but they are effectively appreciating, people would make a false judgement about this situation. This may lead people to make misguided decisions to buy a new house, which can exert an adverse impact on their finance. Second, salacious and barbaric content may degrade the morals of society, especially the young generations. As a majority of the young generations tend to champion novel or alien ideas, whether they be morally acceptable or not, they may find such content interesting and ' fashionable '. As a result, it is not uncommon to hear vile epithet or find lascivious topics in the talks of the young.

On the other hand, cultural diversity would underpin the claim that users of websites should be given freedom of expression and each uploaded post has a distinct value. In many countries with strict moral systems such as Vietnam, nudity is a symbol of lust and illiteracy. However, in Greek and Roman sculptures, the greatest artworks were of the human body, both male and female. Likewise, nudists also find it more comfortable to be undressed, hence considering public nudity morally acceptable.

Although I believe that hollow or barbaric content should be banned, this indeed seems to be well-nigh impossible owning to counterarguments. Therefore, I would affirm that parents should hold responsible for controlling how their children use virtual websites. It is because children cannot afford to buy their smartphones or laptops on their own. Therefore, young minds need to seek their parents' permission to use their smartphones. If parents do not want their offspring to be exposed to harmful content on online platforms, they can ban their children's use of smartphones. Otherwise, parents can also allow their children to use these devices only in the presence of adults. Only by these ways can parents prevent their children from getting access to incongruous content on online platforms, and there may be no intervention of such platforms.

In conclusion, I would reaffirm that hollow or barbaric content on online websites should be banned as it can exert an injurious impact on individuals and society as a whole. However, the prohibition of such content may be unsuccessful due to cultural diversity; therefore, parents should take full responsibility to control the way their children use online platforms.

Where did you find that prompt? Are you sure it said "their must be freedom"?

You've yet again used unnatural phrasing in your essay. If you don't stop doing that, you will get a bad mark in the exam. There are no two ways about it! Go over it again, and use natural vocab.

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
teechrWhere did you find that prompt?

AlpheccaStars suggested me in my previous thread.

What previous thread? Do you have the link?

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.

Now, do you see what I mean? You've focused on trying to impress the reader/examiner by using words such as "aver", "barbaric" and "indubitably ", and you've made such basic mistakes as mixing up "there" with "their", and "onus" with "oner". You need to simplify your phrasing and focus on the ideas. If you want to persuade/convince the examiner, then cite examples from real life to support your points.

teechrIf you want to persuade/convince the examiner, then cite examples from real life to support your points.

The thing is I do not have time to read newspaper. Even if I spend time reading news, I will immediately forget what I have read. Anyway, I will try my best to collect as many examples as possible to use them in my essays.^^

teechrYou've focused on trying to impress the reader/examiner by using words such as "aver", "barbaric" and "indubitably "

How about the accuracy of my language?

Are those words used in context (if not natural)?

How about the flow of my essay and ideas?

Give me your opinion.

Thank you very much!!!

Nhật BìnhThe thing is I do not have time to read newspapers.

You should read a variety of texts, not just newspaper articles. Otherwise, how can you improve?

Nhật BìnhHow about the accuracy of my language?Are those words used in context (if not natural)?

If the words used are unsuitable for a particular context, then the text becomes unnatural (inaccurate use of language).

Nhật BìnhHow about the flow of my essay and ideas?

Ideas need to supported by evidence (real-life examples). That's how you get good marks.

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.