It is difficult to say exactly what constitutes legitimacy on the internet. It can be approached from two sides. The first deals with the moral dilemma of the web that is, what is and what is not appropriate. However, this idea in itself is foolish. The internet is comprised of space and the information held within that space. How could a mere person or government be so bold as to declare that there should be limitations on space. It is possible to limit server access to certain sites, but this becomes a farce when considering the whole world and the vast number of servers world wide. The space on the web is not a tangible object that can be carved up to the liking of any particular person. It is the responsibility of the reader to be selective in what he or she is looking for.

It is the reader that is responsible for what he sees on the web, but it is the writer that provides the second side of legitimacy. What is written on the internet is another aspect of the whole concern. Should there be a moral responsibility of the author to only create "appropriate" works. This seems to limit any form of freedom of speech, and definitely creativity. However, there should be some approach as to the rhetorics of the web. That is instead of a lot of nonsense and "coffee talk", the internet should be a place of quality written work. It is said that there is a wealth of information on the internet, but all of this data should have a realistic form that is both intriguing and truthful.