原田英語の英検二次面接 ぜんぶ攻略くん
AI採点

英検1級 二次 予想トピック 58 ・ 📱 メディア・SNS・情報 ・ Agree or disagree

Agree or disagree: Governments should have the power to remove false information from the internet

賛成か反対か：政府はネット上の虚偽の情報を削除する権限を持つべきだ

このトピックを選ぶべき人

フェイクニュースと表現の自由の話題で、両方の危うさを語れる人向け。

骨組み理由3つ（どちらの立場でも話せる）

賛成（Yes）で話すなら

I agree that governments should have the power to remove clearly false and harmful information.

  1. public safetyFalse information can put lives in danger, especially during disasters or health crises. After major earthquakes in Japan, for example, fake requests for rescue on social media have confused emergency workers.
  2. fair electionsOrganized campaigns of false information can mislead voters and damage democracy. Governments have a duty to protect the fairness of elections.
  3. platforms fall shortSocial media companies have not done enough on their own, partly because shocking posts attract more users. Government power is needed to make sure harmful content is actually removed.

反対（No）で話すなら

I disagree. Governments should not have the power to decide what is true and remove information.

  1. free speechGiving the government power over online information is dangerous for freedom of expression. Authorities could label criticism of themselves as false information and delete it.
  2. hard to judgeIt is often difficult to decide what is true, especially on new or complex issues. Ideas that were once dismissed as false have sometimes later turned out to be correct.
  3. better alternativesThere are better ways to fight false information, such as independent fact-checking, community notes, and media literacy education. These do not give the state control over speech.

模範スピーチ反対の立場で2分（253語）

序論Thank you. I'd like to talk about whether governments should have the power to remove false information from the internet. I disagree with this idea, for three reasons: the risk to free speech, the difficulty of judging what is true, and the existence of better alternatives. 理由1First, giving this power to the government is dangerous for freedom of expression. Who decides what counts as false? If the authorities have that power, they could label criticism of their own policies as misinformation and delete it. In fact, some governments around the world already use so-called fake news laws to silence journalists. 理由2Second, it is often very hard to judge what is true. On new or complicated issues, experts themselves may disagree, and our understanding can change over time. In the early stages of the pandemic, for example, official advice on wearing masks changed as more information became available. A government that deletes posts too quickly could remove views that later prove correct. 理由3Third, there are better ways to deal with false information. Independent fact-checkers, warning labels, and community notes can correct misleading posts without removing them. Above all, media literacy education can help people judge information for themselves. 譲歩Admittedly, some false information is truly harmful, such as fake rescue requests after a disaster. However, existing laws against fraud and defamation can already deal with the worst cases. まとめIn conclusion, because it threatens free speech, truth is often hard to judge, and better alternatives exist, I disagree that governments should have this power. Thank you.

和訳

ありがとうございます。政府はネット上の虚偽の情報を削除する権限を持つべきかについてお話しします。私はこの考えに反対です。理由は3つ、表現の自由への危険、何が真実かを判断する難しさ、そしてより良い方法があることです。 第一に、この権限を政府に与えることは、表現の自由にとって危険です。何が虚偽かを誰が決めるのでしょうか。当局がその権限を持てば、自らの政策への批判を誤情報と決めつけて削除できてしまいます。実際、世界にはいわゆるフェイクニュース法を使ってジャーナリストを黙らせている政府もあります。 第二に、何が真実かを判断するのはとても難しいことが多いのです。新しい問題や複雑な問題では専門家の間でも意見が分かれ、理解も時間とともに変わります。例えばパンデミックの初期には、マスク着用についての公式の助言が、情報が増えるにつれて変わりました。投稿をすぐに削除する政府は、後に正しいと分かる意見まで消してしまうかもしれません。 第三に、虚偽の情報にはもっと良い対処法があります。独立したファクトチェッカーや警告表示、コミュニティノートは、投稿を削除せずに誤解を招く内容を正せます。何よりも、メディアリテラシー教育があれば、人々は自分で情報を判断できるようになります。 確かに、災害後の偽の救助要請のように、本当に有害な虚偽の情報もあります。しかし、最も悪質なケースは、詐欺や名誉毀損に関する今ある法律ですでに対処できます。 結論として、表現の自由を脅かし、真実の判断はしばしば難しく、より良い方法もあるという理由から、政府がこの権限を持つことに反対します。ありがとうございました。

想定質疑面接委員はこう突っ込んでくる

QBut what about false information that spreads during a disaster and puts lives at risk?

That's a fair point. Admittedly, such information can be extremely dangerous. However, in those cases, platforms can act quickly under their own rules, and the police can deal with clearly illegal posts. I just don't think the government should have a general power to decide what is true.

Q：でも、災害時に広がって命を危険にさらす虚偽の情報はどうですか。
A：もっともなご指摘です。確かに、そうした情報は非常に危険になりえます。しかしその場合は、運営会社が自社のルールに基づいて素早く対応できますし、明らかに違法な投稿には警察が対処できます。何が真実かを決める一般的な権限を政府が持つべきではない、というのが私の考えです。

QAre fact-checkers really neutral?

Not always, I admit. Fact-checkers can have their own biases. That's why I believe it's important to have many different fact-checkers and to show the evidence behind their judgments, so that readers can decide for themselves.

Q：ファクトチェッカーは本当に中立ですか。
A：いつもそうとは限らないと認めます。ファクトチェッカーにも偏りはありえます。だからこそ、さまざまなファクトチェッカーがいて、判断の根拠を示すことが大切だと考えます。そうすれば、読む人が自分で判断できます。

QShould platforms be held responsible for false information?

To some extent, yes. They should be required to respond quickly to illegal content and to explain how their systems decide which posts to promote. But that is different from the government itself deleting information, which I believe is too risky.

Q：運営会社は虚偽の情報に責任を負うべきですか。
A：ある程度は負うべきです。違法な内容に素早く対応することや、どの投稿を広めるかを仕組みがどう決めているのか説明することは、義務づけるべきです。しかしそれは、政府自身が情報を削除することとは別の話で、そちらは危険が大きすぎると考えます。

語彙このトピックで使える表現