In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
“Freedom of speech is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited”
or
“ More focus should e placed on social responsibility”?
Singapore is well known for a cosmopolitan city where people of different races fuse together to form a society. This is a stark contrast to the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka today, as the conflict has yet to even cease-fire. The peace and harmony we enjoyed today should not be taken for granted, nor should we allow the notion of ‘freedom of speech’ to disrupt it. Therefore, I would take up a stand to say that Singaporeans should emphasize more on social responsibility than freedom of speech.
If everyone is to focus on their own human rights, and demands that their views are brought across to others in the world, even if it hurts the welfare of the innocent parties in the process, the world would be a chaotic one. Verbal abuses would be hurled all over the place, and there would be no consideration for the feelings of others. This is extremely lethal to a country like Singapore, where the slightest unfair treatment of any particular race might spark off a dispute, which will then snowball into a frightful nightmare for the nation. Thus, everyone should play a part in ensuring that their insensitivity or actions should not hurt the feelings of others.
Much focus has been on “freedom of speech” in the 20th and 21st century. But should humans really accept and pardon all “freedom of speech”, even if it comes across to us as vulgar, malicious, and comments that are not at all constructive? If we really do that, wouldn’t evil-doers take this golden opportunity to create havoc in this already perilous Earth? Indeed, teachers in schools are encouraging their students to participate actively in state-matters or other world affairs, to voice their opinions, and try to make a difference to the unjust in the world. However, individuals should note that they should practise responsibility and not hurt the feelings of any others in the process. Although this is sometimes inevitable, they have to make sure that they accusations and criticism can be supported and accounted for.
I believe most of us has know at least a little about the cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed, drawn by the Danish. Perhaps to the cartoonist, the cartoons might be what Prophet Mohammed appears to be to him. However, instead of keeping them to himself, he chose to publish them to the whole world, causing emotional grief and anger to the Muslims worldwide. If freedom of speech is all about inflicting harm of any kind on others, then it shouldn’t be allowed in the first place. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=YALBHOSGVSEHFQFIQMFCFF4AVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/01/31/wdane31.xml
Therefore, in my opinion, instead of demanding for freedom of speech all the time, the masses should focus more on social responsibility so that everyone can live harmoniously with one another in this world that is already filled with many agonies.
13 June, 2007
20 May, 2007
Censorship can never be justified. Do you agree?
To censor means to ‘read publications or correspondence or to watch theatrical performances and suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene or politically unacceptable’. However, to each and every individual, the term ‘obscene’ and ‘politically unacceptable’ may mean different levels of interpretation. Thus, censorship is extremely difficult, and thus can never be justified.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Censor
There are many forms of things awaiting censorship by the government, eg. Books, TV programmes, movies, music and even advertisements. This makes censorship even harder. Take for example live performance. It may include a ‘revealing’ dance, and this might be censored by the conservative local authorities who then order them to remove that part of the show. However, to the audience, the ‘revealing’ dance might not be as open as they see it. It might just be a normal everyday thing, and they see no reason why it should n
ot be allowed.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/cgi-bin/search/search_7days.pl?status=&search=censor&id=276945
Moreover, even if censorship does occur to eliminate the parts deemed inappropriate by censors, the meaning of the whole idea or concept will still be there! For example, a violent movie has its most bloody and gruesome scenes removed, yet the rest of the movie is still saturated with the idea of extreme brutality and condensed with bloodshed. However, the government could not totally ban such movies which are in popular demand! Otherwise, the people will still buy VCDs and DVDs from neighbouring countries for viewing.
However, there is certainly a kind of social customs and culture in an area, and censorship can be carried out especially for the people living there. There should have somehow a similar attitude towards what is acceptable and what is not in that unique and special culture of theirs. Yet again, a cosmopolitan area like Singapore has migrants from all over the world. The Chinese are traditionally more conservative, while the Caucasians are generally more open. Thus, conflicting views may arise due to the great differncein their beliefs.
Thus, we can see the limitations to censorship, and many controversies have arisen because of the different levels of acceptance of certain sensitive areas, including politcs. There isn’t a clear-cut line drawing a difference between the morally right and wrong, and thus, censorship can never be justified.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Censor
There are many forms of things awaiting censorship by the government, eg. Books, TV programmes, movies, music and even advertisements. This makes censorship even harder. Take for example live performance. It may include a ‘revealing’ dance, and this might be censored by the conservative local authorities who then order them to remove that part of the show. However, to the audience, the ‘revealing’ dance might not be as open as they see it. It might just be a normal everyday thing, and they see no reason why it should n
ot be allowed.
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna/cgi-bin/search/search_7days.pl?status=&search=censor&id=276945
Moreover, even if censorship does occur to eliminate the parts deemed inappropriate by censors, the meaning of the whole idea or concept will still be there! For example, a violent movie has its most bloody and gruesome scenes removed, yet the rest of the movie is still saturated with the idea of extreme brutality and condensed with bloodshed. However, the government could not totally ban such movies which are in popular demand! Otherwise, the people will still buy VCDs and DVDs from neighbouring countries for viewing.
However, there is certainly a kind of social customs and culture in an area, and censorship can be carried out especially for the people living there. There should have somehow a similar attitude towards what is acceptable and what is not in that unique and special culture of theirs. Yet again, a cosmopolitan area like Singapore has migrants from all over the world. The Chinese are traditionally more conservative, while the Caucasians are generally more open. Thus, conflicting views may arise due to the great differncein their beliefs.
Thus, we can see the limitations to censorship, and many controversies have arisen because of the different levels of acceptance of certain sensitive areas, including politcs. There isn’t a clear-cut line drawing a difference between the morally right and wrong, and thus, censorship can never be justified.
16 May, 2007
The mass media exerts a greater influence over teenagers today than their parents. Do you agree?
Comparing the amount of time most teenagers spend with their family, and the amount of time they spend on entertainment with their friends, I believe few would disagree that parents have increasing lost control over the moral values and mindsets of their children. More often than not, the mass media forms a great part of the entertainment enjoyed by teenagers, e.g. internet, movies and television programmes. Thus, the larger amount of time teenagers spend with the mass media than with their parents makes me come to the point that the former does exerts a greater influence on teenagers today than their parents.
http://www.bc.edu/sites/genpulse/issues/media.html
Mass media is thought to be the ‘hip’ thing and many will not hesitate to follow the trends set by celebrities, depicted through TV variety shows and so on The inculcate of Western values e.g. human rights has become the cause of many disputes within a family, and evidence can be shown by the numerous cases of rebellious teenagers leaving home. Other than that, in many countries, tobacco companies have realized the great impact celebrities have on their audiences, and thus make use of their influencing power to attract more potential customers. This is very effective in changing the mindset of teenagers, despite the incalculable attempts by their parents asking them not to smoke.
http://www.tvparty.com/vaultcomcig.html
Teenagers tend to find their parents naggy, especially when they keep harping on what they should or should not do. This is especially true when they continuously mention about traditional values that people should follow, and teenagers find them nothing but country pumpkins who know nothing. In that case, teenagers have a very low possibility of listening and applying what their parents have taught them. Conversely, “values” taught to them through interesting means like movies tend to leave a great impact on the minds of teenagers and they tend to apply them in their daily lives.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/television/tv_impact_kids.cfm
However, strict parents have direct control over their children, which enables them to instill discipline in them, and not to follow mindless trends blindly. They can do so, perhaps by restricting them to the amount of media they are exposed to, e.g. no violent movies. Severe control would mean punishment if they go against the rules set by their parents. But then, this would again make teenagers today rebel even more as they hate to be restricted, and are already used to the notion of freedom. Thus, parents seem to have little control or influence on their children compared to the media.
In conclusion, I agree to a large extent that the media exerts a greater influence on most teenagers today than their parents. Thus, it would be of utmost importance that the media is imparting the correct moral values to the current generations who would be the pillars of our society in the days to come.
http://www.bc.edu/sites/genpulse/issues/media.html
Mass media is thought to be the ‘hip’ thing and many will not hesitate to follow the trends set by celebrities, depicted through TV variety shows and so on The inculcate of Western values e.g. human rights has become the cause of many disputes within a family, and evidence can be shown by the numerous cases of rebellious teenagers leaving home. Other than that, in many countries, tobacco companies have realized the great impact celebrities have on their audiences, and thus make use of their influencing power to attract more potential customers. This is very effective in changing the mindset of teenagers, despite the incalculable attempts by their parents asking them not to smoke.
http://www.tvparty.com/vaultcomcig.html
Teenagers tend to find their parents naggy, especially when they keep harping on what they should or should not do. This is especially true when they continuously mention about traditional values that people should follow, and teenagers find them nothing but country pumpkins who know nothing. In that case, teenagers have a very low possibility of listening and applying what their parents have taught them. Conversely, “values” taught to them through interesting means like movies tend to leave a great impact on the minds of teenagers and they tend to apply them in their daily lives.
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/television/tv_impact_kids.cfm
However, strict parents have direct control over their children, which enables them to instill discipline in them, and not to follow mindless trends blindly. They can do so, perhaps by restricting them to the amount of media they are exposed to, e.g. no violent movies. Severe control would mean punishment if they go against the rules set by their parents. But then, this would again make teenagers today rebel even more as they hate to be restricted, and are already used to the notion of freedom. Thus, parents seem to have little control or influence on their children compared to the media.
In conclusion, I agree to a large extent that the media exerts a greater influence on most teenagers today than their parents. Thus, it would be of utmost importance that the media is imparting the correct moral values to the current generations who would be the pillars of our society in the days to come.
08 May, 2007
The media corrupts our society. Do you agree?
I cannot, but agree to a large extent that the media has slowly permeated our life and corrupted our society. The corruption I meant refers to the disregard of moral and social values the various forms of media has resulted in.
Blogging— the most fashionable way of writing journals in today’s society. Other than a channel for stressed populace to express their pent-up emotions, blog has also become a dangerous trap where bloggers may be prosecuted for their irresponsible remarks.
http://paultan.org/archives/2005/09/12/singaporean-bloggers-charged-under-sedition-act/
“SINGAPORE : For the first time in Singapore, two bloggers have been charged under the Sedition Act for making racist remarks.” The media has played a very important role in shaping the minds of the people today. The ‘freedom of speech’ on blogs has led masses to believe that they can comment on whatever things they like, and get away with it, but apparently not.
A renowned blogger, Wendy, is well known in Singapore for her sarcastic criticism of everyone and everything around her in her blog. So high is her popularity that advertisers even pay her so as to put their advertisements at her blog. Doesn’t this encourage bloggers to post as sarcastic and as mean a comment on their blogs, to attract attention so that they get paid for that?
http://xiaxue.blogspot.com/2005/02/what-celebrity-where.html
Other than blogging, catching a movie during weekends with friends has become a favourite pastime with people today. However, did you notice that the number of violent movies has increased significantly from the past till now? Reports have shown that movie violence has indeed increase violence crimes, and what does this goes to show? It simply means that the movie, which is a form of media, has resulted in the corruption of the society! Youngsters and even immature adults imitate the characters in the movies, and bring harm in our society. Movies saturated with violence are still produced despite the dire consequences they bring about, thus bringing harm and corrupting the society.
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/moviescrime06-07-31.pdf
From the various evidence gathered, I conclude that the media has played a significant role in corrupting the society.
Blogging— the most fashionable way of writing journals in today’s society. Other than a channel for stressed populace to express their pent-up emotions, blog has also become a dangerous trap where bloggers may be prosecuted for their irresponsible remarks.
http://paultan.org/archives/2005/09/12/singaporean-bloggers-charged-under-sedition-act/
“SINGAPORE : For the first time in Singapore, two bloggers have been charged under the Sedition Act for making racist remarks.” The media has played a very important role in shaping the minds of the people today. The ‘freedom of speech’ on blogs has led masses to believe that they can comment on whatever things they like, and get away with it, but apparently not.
A renowned blogger, Wendy, is well known in Singapore for her sarcastic criticism of everyone and everything around her in her blog. So high is her popularity that advertisers even pay her so as to put their advertisements at her blog. Doesn’t this encourage bloggers to post as sarcastic and as mean a comment on their blogs, to attract attention so that they get paid for that?
http://xiaxue.blogspot.com/2005/02/what-celebrity-where.html
Other than blogging, catching a movie during weekends with friends has become a favourite pastime with people today. However, did you notice that the number of violent movies has increased significantly from the past till now? Reports have shown that movie violence has indeed increase violence crimes, and what does this goes to show? It simply means that the movie, which is a form of media, has resulted in the corruption of the society! Youngsters and even immature adults imitate the characters in the movies, and bring harm in our society. Movies saturated with violence are still produced despite the dire consequences they bring about, thus bringing harm and corrupting the society.
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/moviescrime06-07-31.pdf
From the various evidence gathered, I conclude that the media has played a significant role in corrupting the society.
27 April, 2007
Virginia Tech GunMan
Shaping the mind of the Gunman
I believe many people gasped in shock and terror when the news of the Gunman Cho Seung Hui was reported. Who would have guessed that a young adult of 23 years will take the lifes of 32 innocent people, followed by his own?
From the mouths of those who had interacted with Cho before, the readers understood that Cho had been some kind of loner even before he moved from South Korea to United States. His former classmate quoted him as “a loner obsessed with violence, and had serious personal problems”. Is being brought up in a family that is not so well-to-do the main reason for his loner character? I believe not, for there are many cases of successful figures who came from humble backgrounds.
The large streak of violence and rebellion in Cho might be due to the lack of concern from his family members. He himself lived on the Virginia Tech campus, away from his parents and sister. He was seldom mentioned by his father to his friends and relatives. Instead, his Princeton-graduated sister was the trophy of the family who was always boasted about. The alienation he experienced might have arisen because of the lack of communication between him and the community he had lived in.
Disturbing dark side to technology exhibited during murder
Cho had made use today’s advanced technology to record explanatory videos of why he killed in Virginia Tech. What is so disturbing is that improved technology has enabled Cho to record such videos, package them and mail them before continuing the massacre at Norris Hall.
The airing of the footage on television had made the media complicit in the bloodbath. A much dreaded effect of this is, many mindless people who want to gain ‘fame’ would follow in his bloody footsteps.
However, the internet was put to use while Cho’s bullets shot his victims to death. Chat rooms and emails were filled with rumors of the massacre as news get out. I trust that there should be quite a few students in the campus who received the mails not believing the news. To them, this might just be another one of the many silly pranks played by the many fools out there. This goes to show the level of trust and belief people put into the internet, and should set us into thinking. Should we trust what is passed around on the net in times of emergency or crisis?
I believe many people gasped in shock and terror when the news of the Gunman Cho Seung Hui was reported. Who would have guessed that a young adult of 23 years will take the lifes of 32 innocent people, followed by his own?
From the mouths of those who had interacted with Cho before, the readers understood that Cho had been some kind of loner even before he moved from South Korea to United States. His former classmate quoted him as “a loner obsessed with violence, and had serious personal problems”. Is being brought up in a family that is not so well-to-do the main reason for his loner character? I believe not, for there are many cases of successful figures who came from humble backgrounds.
The large streak of violence and rebellion in Cho might be due to the lack of concern from his family members. He himself lived on the Virginia Tech campus, away from his parents and sister. He was seldom mentioned by his father to his friends and relatives. Instead, his Princeton-graduated sister was the trophy of the family who was always boasted about. The alienation he experienced might have arisen because of the lack of communication between him and the community he had lived in.
Disturbing dark side to technology exhibited during murder
Cho had made use today’s advanced technology to record explanatory videos of why he killed in Virginia Tech. What is so disturbing is that improved technology has enabled Cho to record such videos, package them and mail them before continuing the massacre at Norris Hall.
The airing of the footage on television had made the media complicit in the bloodbath. A much dreaded effect of this is, many mindless people who want to gain ‘fame’ would follow in his bloody footsteps.
However, the internet was put to use while Cho’s bullets shot his victims to death. Chat rooms and emails were filled with rumors of the massacre as news get out. I trust that there should be quite a few students in the campus who received the mails not believing the news. To them, this might just be another one of the many silly pranks played by the many fools out there. This goes to show the level of trust and belief people put into the internet, and should set us into thinking. Should we trust what is passed around on the net in times of emergency or crisis?
15 April, 2007
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news.Discuss this with references to recent events.
The mass media exhibits a very influential role over people these days. Slimming advertisements states that only bamboo-thin bodies are beautiful, and most don’t dare to disagree, for pretty top models are indeed that skinny. With this influential power in hand, the media is able to change the mindsets of people, slowly, bit by bit hypnotize human beings into thinking what they want us to believe. Other than being a platform where news is released to the public, the media is slowly evolving into a factory that produces news.
What I world consider worthy news would be news that is of certain level of use to us. However, the variety of news now includes which celebrity has how many new girlfriends or boyfriends, or who has just broken up with whom. This kind of news is of little value to us, perhaps maybe for entertainment, yet may seriously intrude the privacy of the victim. Consider the this news
“Prince William breaks up with girlfriend” April 14, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/14/britain.william.reut/index.html
The poor ex-girlfriend of prince Williams has to cope with the possible harassing by reporters for juicy details while nursing a broken heart. Figures of authority, especially celebrities, have to tolerate the media intruding into their private lives, and making their daily life know to people around the world. Is this fair to them?
Think about this. A murder was committed, and the mother of the poor victim has to face similar harassment by reporters who bombarded her with numerous questions regarding the incident. Her grief was refreshed over and over again by insensitive human beings that did not care about her feelings. The whole incident was blown up, and was reported in the newspapers for days, if not weeks. The family of the suspect had to share the shame, humiliation and cold stares of the public who recognize them due to their photographs published in the papers. Is this not the consequences caused by the media? http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cgi-bin/search/search_7days.pl?status=&search=Huang+na&id=157756
Last year, a school appeared in the papers, but not for a glorious reason though. A female student had posted a video showing two boys trying to act as if they were in a fight. This video caused a stir, due to the media’s massive report on how school students are getting more violent nowadays. Although I do not agree with what the students did, I do not think the media should make such a big hoo-ha on what they had done in a moment of playfulness and foolishness. The school’s reputation suffered as a result of the news report, for it takes only a few naughty students in the news to portray a bad image of the institute. ‘They do not seem to be doing it for a video, but are captured anyway on film.’ The media’s sarcastic comment will definitely aggravate the situation. http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,107194,00.html
Although I would say that the media do report news, they would also ‘accidentally’ add in some things, thus making them the news they ‘create’. Perhaps to them, this is inevitable as they need audiences, for that is also what the advertisers who pay them want. The incidents mentioned above may have happened up to two years ago, but the issues are still relevant, and so I would consider them recent and worth some thought to it.
What I world consider worthy news would be news that is of certain level of use to us. However, the variety of news now includes which celebrity has how many new girlfriends or boyfriends, or who has just broken up with whom. This kind of news is of little value to us, perhaps maybe for entertainment, yet may seriously intrude the privacy of the victim. Consider the this news
“Prince William breaks up with girlfriend” April 14, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/04/14/britain.william.reut/index.html
The poor ex-girlfriend of prince Williams has to cope with the possible harassing by reporters for juicy details while nursing a broken heart. Figures of authority, especially celebrities, have to tolerate the media intruding into their private lives, and making their daily life know to people around the world. Is this fair to them?
Think about this. A murder was committed, and the mother of the poor victim has to face similar harassment by reporters who bombarded her with numerous questions regarding the incident. Her grief was refreshed over and over again by insensitive human beings that did not care about her feelings. The whole incident was blown up, and was reported in the newspapers for days, if not weeks. The family of the suspect had to share the shame, humiliation and cold stares of the public who recognize them due to their photographs published in the papers. Is this not the consequences caused by the media? http://www.channelnewsasia.com/cgi-bin/search/search_7days.pl?status=&search=Huang+na&id=157756
Last year, a school appeared in the papers, but not for a glorious reason though. A female student had posted a video showing two boys trying to act as if they were in a fight. This video caused a stir, due to the media’s massive report on how school students are getting more violent nowadays. Although I do not agree with what the students did, I do not think the media should make such a big hoo-ha on what they had done in a moment of playfulness and foolishness. The school’s reputation suffered as a result of the news report, for it takes only a few naughty students in the news to portray a bad image of the institute. ‘They do not seem to be doing it for a video, but are captured anyway on film.’ The media’s sarcastic comment will definitely aggravate the situation. http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,107194,00.html
Although I would say that the media do report news, they would also ‘accidentally’ add in some things, thus making them the news they ‘create’. Perhaps to them, this is inevitable as they need audiences, for that is also what the advertisers who pay them want. The incidents mentioned above may have happened up to two years ago, but the issues are still relevant, and so I would consider them recent and worth some thought to it.
08 April, 2007
YouTube
YouTube has become a convenient source of information for many, whether is it for work or leisure. In case you still do not know what YouTube is, it is actually a website where people post videos, or watch the videos people post. Each day an estimated 100 million videos are watched by people who visit YouTube, which was launched in February 2005. In my opinion, YouTube has the good and bad sides to it. We can only count on the audience to make the good out of it. However, I agree to a large extent that YouTube has no ethics, that it has been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.
Ethics are ‘the rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession’. The reason why I think YouTube has no ethics is because it has limited control over the contributors of the videos. Although there are cases whereby videos deemed extremely inappropriate are removed promptly, it is very difficult for YouTube to remove each and every such videos before they spread like wildfire among netizens.
It would be unfair to Youtube if we say it has been created for only two major purposes--for entertainment and money. Although it is true to a large extent that Youtube is a great form of entertainment to many, and an excellent source of revenue from advertisers due to the high viewership, it also serves as a convenient source for users to share useful information from all fields. For instance, a doctor in UK has posted videos on YouTube with nurses demonstrating how to sample blood sugar levels and use an inhaler. This is a case whereby educational and handy knowledge is conveyed to the audience.
However, there is one incident that strongly imposes upon us a very bad impression of YouTube. YouTube’s owner, Google had declined to remove a 44-second film showing graffiti over the Thai king's face. This film also shows a feet being placed over the Thai king's face - an offensive act to the Thais, who consider feet dirty. This issue led me into deep thoughts. Why does Google allow such a disrespectful video to be aired? Is it out to create something out of nothing? May I know of what use is the video to viewers?
The wide variety of funny, interesting, unique and unbelievable videos posted on Youtube provides a cheap source of entertainment (people only need to pay for internet and electricity charges) which in turn attracts millions of viewers daily. The founders of Youtube in turn get to earn lucrative incomes from advertisers that flock to them. Thus ,I agree to a large extent that “YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.”
Ethics are ‘the rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession’. The reason why I think YouTube has no ethics is because it has limited control over the contributors of the videos. Although there are cases whereby videos deemed extremely inappropriate are removed promptly, it is very difficult for YouTube to remove each and every such videos before they spread like wildfire among netizens.
It would be unfair to Youtube if we say it has been created for only two major purposes--for entertainment and money. Although it is true to a large extent that Youtube is a great form of entertainment to many, and an excellent source of revenue from advertisers due to the high viewership, it also serves as a convenient source for users to share useful information from all fields. For instance, a doctor in UK has posted videos on YouTube with nurses demonstrating how to sample blood sugar levels and use an inhaler. This is a case whereby educational and handy knowledge is conveyed to the audience.
However, there is one incident that strongly imposes upon us a very bad impression of YouTube. YouTube’s owner, Google had declined to remove a 44-second film showing graffiti over the Thai king's face. This film also shows a feet being placed over the Thai king's face - an offensive act to the Thais, who consider feet dirty. This issue led me into deep thoughts. Why does Google allow such a disrespectful video to be aired? Is it out to create something out of nothing? May I know of what use is the video to viewers?
The wide variety of funny, interesting, unique and unbelievable videos posted on Youtube provides a cheap source of entertainment (people only need to pay for internet and electricity charges) which in turn attracts millions of viewers daily. The founders of Youtube in turn get to earn lucrative incomes from advertisers that flock to them. Thus ,I agree to a large extent that “YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)