Teil A: Schreiben

Wahloption 1

Outline the information on the narrator and his family.

(20%)

Analyze how the son's relationship to his mother is presented. Focus on narrative techniques and use of language.

(40%)

Choose one of the following tasks.

3.1

Taking the narrator's experiences as a starting point, discuss the chances and challenges for second-generation immigrants in the U.S. or

3.2

You are taking part in an international youth project which deals with the role language plays when immigrating to a new country. You have decided to focus on the U.S. as an immigrant country.

Write a blog entry for the project's website in which you assess the necessity for immigrants to acquire English when coming to the U.S.

(40%)

Material

Ocean Vuong: On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous

The novel from which this excerpt is taken is in the form of a letter from a Vietnamese-American son to his mother.

When it comes to words, you possess fewer than the coins you saved from your nail salon tips

in the milk gallon under the kitchen cabinet. Often you’d gesture to a bird, a flower, or a pair of

lace curtains from Walmart and say only that it’s beautiful—whatever it was. “Đẹp quá!” you

once exclaimed, pointing to the hummingbird whirring over the creamy orchid in the neighbor’s

yard. “It’s beautiful!” You asked me what it was called and I answered in English—the only

language I had for it. You nodded blankly.

The next day, you had already forgotten the name, the syllables slipping right from your tongue.

But then, coming home from town, I spotted the hummingbird feeder in our front yard, the glass

orb filled with a clear, sweet nectar, surrounded by colorful plastic blossoms with pinhead holes

for their beaks. When I asked you about it, you pulled the crumpled cardboard box from the

garbage, pointed to the hummingbird, its blurred wings and needled beak—a bird you could

not name but could nonetheless recognize. “Đẹp quá,” you smiled. “Đẹp quá.”

When you came home that night, after Lan and I had eaten our share of tea-rice, we all

walked the forty minutes it took to get to the C-Town of New Britain Avenue. It was near

closing and the aisles were empty. You wanted to buy oxtail, to make bún bò huế for the cold

winter week ahead of us.

Lan and I stood beside you at the butcher counter, holding hands, as you searched the blocks

of marbled flesh in the glass case. Not seeing the tails, you waved to the man behind the

counter. When he asked if he could help, you paused for too long before saying, in Vietnamese,

“Đuôi bò. Anh có đuôi bò không?”

His eyes flicked over each of our faces and asked again, leaning closer. Lan’s hand twitched

in my grip. Floundering, you placed your index finger at the small of your back, turned slightly,

so the man could see your backside, then wiggled your finger while making mooing sounds.

With your other hand, you made a pair of horns above your head. You moved, carefully twisting

and gyrating so he could recognize each piece of this performance: horns, tail, ox. But he only

laughed, his hand over his mouth at first, then louder, booming. The sweat on your forehead

caught the fluorescent light. A middle-aged woman, carrying a box of Lucky Charms, shuffled

past us, suppressing a smile. You worried a molar with your tongue, your cheek bulging. You

were drowning, it seemed, in air. You tried French, pieces of which remained from your

childhood. “Derrière de vache!” you shouted, the veins in your neck showing. By way of reply

the man called to the back room, where a shorter man with darker features emerged and spoke

to you in Spanish. Lan dropped my hand and joined you—mother and daughter twirling and

mooing in circles, Lan giggling the whole time.

The men roared, slapping the counter, their teeth showing huge and white. You turned to me,

your face wet, pleading. “Tell them. Go ahead and tell them what we need.” I didn’t know that

oxtail was called oxtail. I shook my head, shame welling inside me. The men stared, their

chortling now reduced to bewildered concern. The store was closing. One of them asked again,

head lowered, sincere. But we turned from them. We abandoned the oxtail, the bún bò huế.

You grabbed a loaf of Wonder Bread and a jar of mayonnaise. None of us spoke as we

checked out, our words suddenly wrong everywhere, even in our mouths.

In line, among the candy bars and magazines, was a tray of mood rings. You picked one up

between your fingers and, after checking the price, took three—one for each of us. “Đẹp quá,”

you said after a while, barely audible. “Đẹp quá.”

No object is in a constant relationship with pleasure, wrote Barthes. For the writer, however,

it is the mother tongue. But what if the mother tongue is stunted? What if that tongue is not

only the symbol of a void, but is itself a void, what if the tongue is cut out? Can one take

pleasure in loss without losing oneself entirely? The Vietnamese I own is the one you gave

me, the one whose diction and syntax reach only the second-grade level. […]

That night I promised myself I’d never be wordless when you needed me to speak for you. So

began my career as our family’s official interpreter. From then on, I would fill in our blanks, our

silences, stutters, whenever I could. I code switched. I took off our language and wore my

English, like a mask, so that others would see my face, and therefore yours.

When you worked for a year at the clock factory, I called your boss and said, in my most polite

diction, that my mother would like her hours reduced. Why? Because she was exhausted,

because she was falling asleep in the bathtub after she came home from work, and that I was

afraid she would drown. A week later your hours were cut. Or the times, so many times, I would

call the Victoria’s Secret catalog, ordering you bras, underwear, leggings. How the call ladies,

after confusion from the prepubescent voice on the other end, relished in a boy buying lingerie

for his mother. They awww’d into the phone, often throwing in free shipping. And they would

ask me about school, cartoons I was watching, they would tell me about their own sons, that

you, my mother, must be so happy.

I don't know if you're happy, Ma. I never asked.

¹Vuong, O. (2019). On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous. New York: Penguin. pp. 28-31.

² 964 words

Wahloption 2

Outline what the author states about air pollution and why the problem persists.

(30%)

Analyze how the author conveys his view on the issue. Focus on structure and use of language.

(30%)

Choose one of the following tasks.

3.1

"We could achieve cheaper, more effective mobility with a fraction of the pollution." (ll. 21-22)

Taking the quotation as a starting point, comment on what individuals and society can contribute to achieving more sustainable mobility. or

3.2

Governments around the world are implementing legislation regulating social media content. In response, an international computer magazine has asked people to share their views on this development.

Write your article, discussing whether social media content should be monitored and regulated.

(40%)

Material

George Monbiot: We are being poisoned every day, so why do we keep voting for more pollution? Ask a lobbyist

There are some things we rightly find intolerable, such as the possession of poorly trained,

aggressive dogs. There are other things, whose impacts are many thousands of times worse,

that we decide just to live with. What makes the difference? Visibility is one reason: a photo of

a large dog with bared teeth triggers primal fear. Ubiquity is another: the more widespread the

problem, the more we normalise it. Split incentives is another: what if we are simultaneously

both perpetrators and victims? But I think the most important factor is lobbying power.

There is no corporate lobby behind the sale, let alone poor training, of American XL bullies.

But there are powerful corporate lobbies behind the air pollution devastating many people’s

health. Oil corporations don’t want to lose their market. Car firms want to sell existing designs

for as long as possible. Even the manufacturers of wood-burning stoves run a small, but

surprisingly effective, persuasion operation.

Thanks to the Pollution Paradox – the dirtiest industries have the greatest incentive to invest

in politics, so politics comes to be dominated by the dirtiest industries – such lobbies exert a

vast impact on political choice. If people were asked to vote on whether they want their hearts

and lungs damaged, their children’s cognitive development impaired, extra cancers, more

stillbirths, a higher risk of dementia and earlier death, they’d be likely to reject these options.

But, thanks to decades of spin, the stark nature of the choice has been obscured.

The interests of some of the most powerful industries on Earth are represented as the interests

of the working man and woman, trying to go about their business while greens and bureaucrats

impede them. In reality, those who drive for their living – such as taxi drivers, couriers and

rubbish collectors – have the greatest exposure to toxic diesel fumes. We could achieve

cheaper, more effective mobility with a fraction of the pollution. With the right incentives, we

could also heat our homes without poisoning our neighbours.

If you don’t have the evidence required to win an argument, there’s a ready alternative: set

people against each other by stoking a culture war. Low emission zones and low-traffic

neighbourhoods have been the subjects of grotesque falsehoods in the media, lurid conspiracy

theories and dark money lobbying. As the London mayor, Sadiq Khan, pointed out this week,

hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on troll farms on social media attacking

London’s ultra-low emission zone (Ulez). We don’t know where this money came from, but it

may have been decisive in securing a Conservative win in the Uxbridge byelection.

Emboldened by the apparent success of such lobbying, the government is waging war on

public health, announcing a “review” of low-traffic neighbourhoods and scrapping the

commitment to stop the sale of polluting private vehicles by 2030. Across both the billionaire

press and social media, those who seek cleaner air are demonised. Tory MPs who have called

for severe penalties against environmental protesters are noticeably more relaxed about the

vandalism of Ulez cameras. It scarcely gets more perverse.

The Guardian’s mapping of air pollution in Europe (including the UK) tells a shocking story.

Only 2% of people live in places where the pollution caused by PM2.5 – tiny particles that

cause a wide range of diseases – is within the limits recommended by the World Health

Organization. Most people, including millions in the UK, are exposed to toxic particles at

concentrations of at least twice this level. You would have to move to northern Scotland to

escape the daily assault on your health.

Many rural people will be surprised to see how polluted their air is, but that’s because the

media seldom mention the major source of these particles: ammonia from farms. A study by

researchers at University College London found that even in cities, ammonia from farms

produces more particulate pollution than the cities themselves do. […] Where there is public

silence, lobbyists rule. The ammonia comes from livestock farms and the manure and fertiliser

spread on fields. There are several ways of greatly reducing its release: storing manure in

sealed tanks rather than open lagoons, injecting it into soil instead of spreading it, banning the

use of urea as a fertiliser, reducing the animal products we eat. According to a paper in the

journal Science, cutting ammonia pollution is 10 times more cost-effective than cutting pollution

from nitrogen oxides, another major cause of airborne particulates. Halving ammonia

emissions, another analysis suggests, could save 3,000 lives in the UK every year. Reducing

ammonia, according to Andrea Pozzer of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, is the “most

effective way to reduce mortality linked to air pollution”.

But the government, lobbied by the National Farmers’ Union, has thwarted all such efforts. In

a submission to parliament, the NFU appeared to admit that the purpose of much manure

spreading is to dump surplus slurry rather than to fertilise crops: it needs to happen because

“the production or import of manures far outstrips the immediate need of accessible soil and

crops”. This is the issue that blights our rivers as well as our air: livestock farms produce far

more manure than the land can absorb. The lobby group went on to argue against a ban on

autumn spreading, which causes the worst pollution, and against a ban on the use of urea, a

potent source of ammonia. The government gave it everything it wanted. […]

The idea that some people may freely poison others is one of the most astonishing but least

contested aspects of modern life. It's time we saw past the lies and the culture wars. It's time

to stop accepting our daily poisoning on behalf of corporate profits.

¹ Monbiot, G. (2023). We are being poisoned every day, so why do we keep voting for more pollution? Ask a lobbyist. The Guardian. 22 September 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/22/air-pollution-lobbying-politics-ulez [accessed: 10 October 2023]

² 948 words

Weiter lernen mit SchulLV-PLUS!

monatlich kündbarSchulLV-PLUS-Vorteile im ÜberblickDu hast bereits einen Account?

Please note:

The solutions presented here are just one possible way to approach the task. There are often multiple valid methods and perspectives, and alternative approaches may be equally effective.

Wahloption 1

Ocean Vuong: On Earth We're Briefly Gorgeous

In the text, the narrator recalls his childhood growing up in the U.S. with his Vietnamese mother and grandmother. The text paints a vivid picture of a family shaped by migration and language barriers. In contrast to his family members, the narrator is fluent in English, yet he speaks only limited Vietnamese. The narrator’s mother has limited language skills in English, French, and even her mother tongue Vietnamese. As a result, she depends on her son to take care of everyday interactions with Americans. Despite these struggles, she remains connected to her Vietnamese culture, especially through food. Though she does not speak English, the narrator’s grandmother has a close relationship with her daughter and grandson. After an incident in which his family struggled to communicate their needs at a store, he takes on the role of interpreter of the family at a young age, managing communication for the family. He describes how he takes care of everyday responsibilities like ordering underwear for his mother and contacting her boss when she was exhausted from working long hours in order to support her family. It is clear that the narrator takes on this role in order to help his family and prevent a situation, similar to the one in the store where they were unable to buy what they wanted to due to their lack of English, from happening again. However, it becomes evident that the narrator struggles with this role. For him, speaking English feels “like a mask” (line 52) that he puts on and despite people telling him that his mother must be so happy, he reveals that he is unsure if she is.

With different narrative techniques and careful use of language, the text offers a glimpse into the son’s relationship with his mother. It becomes evident that their bond is loving and caring yet restricted by his mother’s limited ability to express her thoughts and feelings in words. In retrospect, the narrator portrays a complex relationship with his mother. In a letter addressed to her, the first-person narrator recalls his childhood memories. Thus, the reader is presented with a limited point of view as the letter provides a one-sided insight into their relationship from an adult point of view. The focus of the letter is on incidents revealing the importance of language as a means of communication. Discussing his mother’s limited capacity to express herself verbally, he uses a comparison: “When it comes to words, you possess fewer than the coins you saved from your nail salon tips” (l. 1). Moreover, he portrays the failure of communication as a turning point in their relationship. Describing an incident at the supermarket, he writes, “You turned to me, your face wet, pleading” (ll. 34-35), “I shook my head, shame welling inside me” (l. 36). These incidents lead the narrator to commit to supporting his family by using his English proficiency. He says, “That night, I promised myself I’d never be wordless when you needed me to speak for you” (l. 49). These examples clearly show how their relationship is shaped by the language barrier. Furthermore, it becomes evident that due to the language barrier, he is unsure whether his mother is truly happy. The excerpt ends with an implied question: “I don’t know if you’re happy, Ma. I never asked” (l. 62). This implied question shows how the narrator expresses his concern for his mother’s emotional well-being and his regret of failing to truly communicate with her directly. However, the narrator also shares observations of his mother’s actions in which he recalls her as kind and caring. He shows his appreciation of his mother’s kindness and concern for her family, quoting “Đẹp quá,” you smiled. “Đẹp quá” (l.12) and fondly remembers how she purchased mood rings for them: “You picked one up ... one for each of us” (ll. 41-42). Through the use of first-person plural pronouns, for example, “But we turned from them. We abandoned ... None of us spoke ... our words suddenly wrong ... in our mouths” (ll. 38-40), the narrator indicates a sense of bonding in their joint exclusion. He uses vivid descriptions, especially when discussing the situation in the store. Anaphoras and paratactic sentences depict the narrator’s despair and his embarrassment about not being able to assist his mother. He writes, “You worried a molar with your tongue … You tried French …, you shouted …” (ll. 28-30). Using a metaphor, he shows that he perceived his mother to be “drowning, it seemed, in air” (ll. 51-52). Additionally, he uses imagery and similes to depict the relevance of the English language. “I ... wore my English, like a mask, so that others would see my face, and therefore yours” (ll. 51-52). This indicates the son’s protectiveness by speaking for both of them, thus implicitly giving his mother a voice. Here, the reader also sees a shift in pronouns from first-person singular to plural: “I would fill in our blanks, our silences, stutters, ... I took off our language ...” (ll. 50-51). Presenting examples of challenging situations, like when he “called [her] boss” (l. 53) or the “the Victoria’s Secret catalog” (l. 57) underpins the son’s willingness to take responsibility within the family, though still a child which makes it clear how the roles were reversed due to language barriers.

3.1

The letter provides an insight into the challenges and chances that second-generation immigrants face in the U.S. The narrator’s experiences show how, from early on, he becomes an intermediary due to his mother’s linguistic deficits. He recalls feelings of embarrassment and a sense of inferiority when communicating with Americans. As an adult, he is proficient in English and educated. For second-generation immigrants in the United States, life presents both significant opportunities and notable challenges.

On the one hand, there is the chance of economic and social mobility. Good education, professional opportunities, or entrepreneurship can help to advance one’s career and personal opportunities. Many second-generation immigrants are bilingual, or even multilingual, which can be an asset on the job market when doing business between the U.S. and the country of (parents’) origin.

Furthermore, growing up as a second-generation immigrant provides one with increased intercultural awareness. This means that immigrants often have knowledge and means to behave adequately in the two cultures and to mediate in social situations which is a huge benefit and can also help to improve one’s economic and social situation.

Lastly, managing culturally and socially challenging situations leads one to be more resilient and adaptable which can have a positive impact on attitudes and values.

Nonetheless, there are many challenges for second-generation immigrants in the U.S. First of all, many immigrants face discrimination due to perpetuated differences in the way certain migrant groups are perceived in public. This has a negative impact on the social status and can also lead to social conflicts within immigrant communities as well as between immigrants and mainstream America.

Moreover, second-generation immigrants often struggle with questions of identity. Language barriers and a life between two cultures might result in a conflicted sense of belonging as well as feelings of alienation.

Additionally, this often comes with intergenerational conflicts as second-generation immigrants feel the pressure to fulfill expectations of first-generation immigrant parents while managing their own dreams and visions for their lives.

Thus, while second-generation immigrants often face profound struggles, there are also many opportunities and benefits of being a second-generation immigrant in the U.S. as they find themselves in a unique position between two cultures.

3.2

Hi guys,

in this blog entry I want to focus on the necessity for immigrants to acquire English when coming to the U.S. What role do languages play when immigrating to a new country? Is it really necessary to learn English when moving to the U.S.? Here’s what I think:

I am of the opinion that English is a necessity when moving to the U.S. English is commonly used in the U.S. and is the unifying force. Being proficient in English allows immigrants to better integrate into U.S. society and it enhances the ability to transfer knowledge and skills that you bring to the U.S. into society. Moreover, knowing how to speak English offers immigrants the opportunity to communicate with other U.S. citizens who might only speak English, and is therefore vital to make new contacts and find friends. Furthermore, if you want to participate in American cultural life, for example be a part of festivities, or enjoy the arts, it is crucial to speak English. The same goes for participation in political life. Being able to speak English gives you the chance to stay informed on political developments, to take part in political discourse, and to adopt civic engagement. Lastly, especially if you are still going to school or plan on working in the U.S., English is a prerequisite. It gives you access to the job market and is the chance to climb the social ladder.

However, it is also important to acknowledge the coexistence of various cultures and of the value of the languages of origin. The U.S. is a multicultural society which grants freedom to choose one’s primary language. While there are many advantages to learning English, this is by no means required by law. Especially if immigrants want to stay within their ethnic community, they might not even rely on English to maintain a social life. Lastly, some languages, like Spanish, are widespread and catered to in official documents and media in the U.S. which allows immigrants to participate in society despite not being able to speak English.

Clearly, being proficient in English has many advantages if you plan on moving to the U.S. However, it is not a necessity and there are many other ways to live a full life without speaking English in the U.S.

What do you think? Could you imagine moving to a country without speaking the official language?

Wahloption 2

George Monbiot: We are being poisoned every day, so why do we keep voting for more pollution? Ask a lobbyist

In the article “We are being poisoned every day, so why do we keep voting for more pollution? Ask a lobbyist” which was published in The Guardian, George Monbiot addresses the severe issue of air pollution and explains why the problem persists despite its known health risks. Monbiot explains that air pollution poses a serious risk to people’s health as it can cause damage to the heart, lungs, cognitive development, and increases the risks of cancer, stillbirth, and other illnesses. However, many people are unaware of the extent of air pollution, especially those living in rural areas as it is caused not only by industry, but also by agriculture. A major air pollutant is ammonia from farms spreading manure. Yet, despite the dangers, the problem persists. Monbiot argues that corporations put profits before public health. Powerful lobby groups influence political decisions and public opinion. According to Monbiot, the Pollution Paradox explains this dynamic: the dirtiest industries have the strongest incentives to invest in political influence, which allows them to shape decisions and public opinion. This leads to corporate interests being promoted as the interests of the public even if this is not the case. Moreover, attempts at reducing air pollution are vilified as obstacles in people’s everyday lives. The media plays an important role in this as well. There is a social division perpetuated by press, social media, and some politicians. This goes hand in hand with double standards regarding acts of vandalism and environmental activism and political backlash from British government regarding environmental policies. As Monbiot points out, it is astonishing how society allows corporations to poison the public. The problem will persist as long as we accept this.

Monbiot is worried about detrimental effects of air pollution on public health. To express his concern, he uses exaggerations and superlatives which make the extent of his worry clear. After comparing the situation to that of a dangerous dog, he argues that this situation is “many thousands of times worse” (l. 2) and explains that it is the “dirtiest” (l.12) industries that hold the most power. Furthermore, he uses an accumulation when he states that “they want their hearts and lungs damaged, ... dementia and earlier death” (ll. 14-16). He does this in order to raise awareness of the dire situation faced by those affected.

Moreover, Monbiot is critical of lobby groups steering political decisions and media coverage. To convey this point, he follows a clear line of argument. He chooses a provocative headline that attracts attention and immediately engages the reader. In the introductory paragraph (ll. 1-6), he sparks curiosity and paves the way to understanding his argument. In the main part (ll. 7-63), he introduces the role of corporate lobbies and their influence on political decisions. Therefore, he reveals adverse effects of air pollution on health and illustrates the scope of toxic air pollution in Europe and the UK. Additionally, he draws attention to the lack of public awareness by focusing on the situation in rural areas. Monbiot ends his article with a concluding paragraph (ll. 64-66), in which he calls for action. This clear line of argument emphasizes the gravity of the situation and the necessity to act.

To demonstrate his expertise and establish credibility, he chooses a formal and scientific register. Hence, he explains the “Pollution Paradox” (l. 12) and cites scientific papers: “According to a paper ... cause of airborne particulates. Halving ammonia emissions ... every year” (ll. 50-53). This signals Monbiot’s credibility.

Being dissatisfied with the current situation, he uses negatively connoted language when referring to polluters, lobbyists, and the treatment of activists, such as “grotesque falsehoods ... lurid conspiracy theories” (ll. 26-27) and “daily poisoning” (l. 66). Moreover, he uses expressions from the lexical field "war" and "combat", like “attacking” (l. 28), and uses metaphors to point out that “the government is waging war on public health” (ll. 31-32) and that “those who seek cleaner air are demonised” (l. 34). This highlights the urgent need for change and how drastic the situation is, as Monbiot perceives it.

He is convinced that people need to push back against the prioritization of corporate benefits at the expense of public health. Therefore, he frequently uses the personal pronouns "we" and "our", for example when he points out that “some things we rightly find intolerable ... other things ... we decide just to live with” (ll. 1-3) and that “we could also heat our homes without poisoning our neighbours.” (ll. 22-23). In this context, he also uses an accumulation when he points out that there would be ways to reduce the impact of manure, if we were “storing manure in sealed tanks ..., injecting it into soil ..., banning the use of urea ..., reducing the animal products we eat.” (ll. 48-50). To further engage the reader, he uses an anaphora, urging the reader to realize “It’s time we saw past the lies ... It’s time to stop accepting our daily poisoning ...” (ll. 65-66). It becomes evident that Monbiot uses language to stir the readers to action as he sees the need for change.

In conclusion, Monbiot effectively conveys his critical stance on air pollution by combining a clear, structured argument with persuasive and emotionally charged language. Through rhetorical devices, scientific references, and direct appeals to the reader, he emphasizes the urgent need for change and mobilizes public awareness. His article successfully highlights both the severity of the issue and the societal complacency that allows it to continue.

3.1

Monbiot is of the opinion that "We could achieve cheaper, more effective mobility with a fraction of the pollution" (ll. 21-22). What role can individuals and society play in achieving more sustainable mobility?

There is a lot of potential for change at an individual level. Firstly, a good starting point is to become informed about alternative, more sustainable means of mobility.

Secondly, one has to develop the willingness to sacrifice comfort for the sake of the environment. While it can be easier to take your car instead of relying on public transport, this is where comfort needs to be sacrificed in order to protect the environment. Moreover, substituting driving by walking is great for the environment and also has a positive impact on one’s health. Another effective approach is to use the bicycle or public transport whenever possible.

Furthermore, consciously opting for fuel-efficient mobility concepts, like carpooling or car sharing, is a good step towards more effective mobility with a fraction of pollution. Lastly, supporting parties and organizations that promote alternative approaches to mobility is an opportunity to help achieve more sustainable mobility.

At a social level, there is a lot that can be done to achieve more sustainable mobility as well. First of all, using state funds for expanding and improving public transport infrastructure is an important step towards promoting more sustainable mobility.

Second of all, subsidizing public transport to achieve attractive ticket prices plays a key role in getting more people to switch to public transport instead of using cars besides it being more comfortable.

Generally speaking, the state should implement incentives for consumers to encourage more sustainable decisions. This could include using legislation to establish low emission zones and to introduce speed limits which would make public transportation more appealing.

Lastly, remote work could be encouraged to reduce commuting.

However, there are also obstacles to change. At an individual level these include increasing mobility as a result of individual leisure behavior and the need for individual means of transport in rural parts of the country.

Moreover, people are conditioned to see cars as convenient status symbols and it would take a change of mind for people to change their views on cars.

Lastly, financial considerations discourage people from choosing alternatives as public transport can be quite costly.

There are also obstacles to change at a societal level. First of all, there is an economic dependence on fuel-driven transport and infrastructure. Second of all, while investments to improve public transport play an important role in making it more attractive, the state has limited financial opportunities to invest appropriately.

Additionally, there is a strong oil and car lobby, using their influence against any change. This also leads to political opposition to drastic changes of mobility concepts.

Finally, society is reluctant to embrace alternative lifestyle and technology.

In conclusion, there is a lot of potential and many opportunities to “achieve cheaper, more effective mobility with a fraction of the pollution" (ll. 21-22). However, there needs to be a change of mind within society and politics in order for this to happen.

3.2

Should social media content be monitored and regulated?

Governments worldwide are increasingly implementing legislation to regulate social media content which is sparking a global debate. As social media continues to shape modern communication, the question arises: should the content shared on these platforms be monitored and regulated? While there are compelling arguments both in favor and against such regulations, finding a balanced approach is crucial to ensuring a fair and responsible digital space.

Proponents of regulating social media content argue that it is essential for enforcing generally accepted ethical and moral standards. Social media platforms often serve as a breeding ground for harmful content, including hate speech, misinformation, and offensive material. Given that these platforms are widely accessed by minors, one of the most pressing concerns is protecting younger users from age-inappropriate or harmful content. Without regulation, children and teenagers are more vulnerable to online abuse, radicalization, and exploitation. Regulating social media would also enable detection and removal of harmful content and it could prevent the rise of radicalization and social division. Harmful material, such as graphic violence or false information, which can have serious consequences for public health and safety, could be removed. For instance, misleading medical advice or conspiracy theories can spread quickly, endangering individuals' well-being. By regulating content, governments can mitigate the risks associated with the spread of harmful misinformation and online radicalization, which are increasingly seen as global threats. Another significant argument in favor of regulation is that it would help balance the profit-driven motives of social media providers with the broader public interest. While social media companies benefit financially from user engagement, often prioritizing sensational content, their profits should not come at the expense of societal well-being. Regulation could encourage these companies to adopt ethical practices, ensuring that the content promoted on their platforms aligns with social good, rather than exploiting users for maximum profit.

On the other hand, there are significant concerns regarding the regulation and monitoring of social media content. Firstly, critics argue that such regulation risks censorship, which can threaten the fundamental principle of free speech. Any attempt to regulate content could inadvertently limit opportunities for open discussion and debate. Another critical concern is the potential for privacy violations. In order to monitor content, governments or platforms may require increased surveillance of users' online activity. Moreover, the implementation of strict content regulation could lead to overregulation. Social media platforms might find it difficult to comply with new regulations, leading to potential legal challenges and a decrease in service quality. Additionally, the definition of harmful content is not always clear-cut, and the difficulty of enforcing nuanced rules could result in inconsistent enforcement and unintended consequences, such as unjust censorship. Finally, there are concerns that governments or private companies may not always regulate in a manner that is fair. Political interests, corporate agendas, or ideological biases could influence the way content is regulated, potentially silencing minority voices or promoting specific narratives that align with powerful stakeholders. This presents a real challenge to ensuring that regulation serves the common good, rather than reinforcing existing power structures.

In conclusion, while the regulation of social media content could ensure safeguarding users and maintaining ethical standards, it also presents considerable challenges. Only time will tell whether and how governments will regulate social media as this is a challenge that has never been faced before.

Weiter lernen mit SchulLV-PLUS!

monatlich kündbarSchulLV-PLUS-Vorteile im ÜberblickDu hast bereits einen Account?