My opponent said that if the government controlled the social networking sites, the politicians might use it for

political promotions and campaigns. But arent the politicians using these sites to campaign, even now? When a specific body of the govt watches over these sites, rather than promoting these politicians, it would prevent them from being epal, pampam or attention-getters. He also said that organizing a new law or bill will require money, effort, and time. Different bills and laws, before getting passed, required time and money. For the betterment of the country and its people, such sacrifices are needed to be done. I still proclaim that the government should control the social networking sites. The governments responsibilities are keeping its citizens, especially its youth, informed and safe. And most of the users of social networking sites are our youth. Knowing that we are being protected by the government gives us a state of peace of mind. It is also their responsibility to mold our youth to good morals. Regulations to these sites would not hurt if in return the youth would become better citizens of the country they are serving. Control is not the same as removal of rights. Too much of anything can be bad, even freedom. How many crimes had already been committed due to these sites? Do you think that our governments actions are enough? Laws are needed to prevent further cases. Government intervention is needed to maintain order and safety, not only here in reality but also in cyber-space.