Internet ethics is obviously a very debatable and controversial topic - and is something which is explored in Mark Poster's essay on 'the good, the bad and the ugly' of the virtual space. Our everyday life is constructed in accordance to rules and boundaries, set out to protect and control what people in society can and cannot do. It is important to note, these laws are set out by the government and mostly enforced through the local police.
However, when we move to the virtual space, boundaries and control is all but set free - enabling the entire world's population to interact and communicate with each other. While this "freedom" is often seen as empowering and Utopian like, it also raises some questions of what is 'ethical' and 'morally right' when taking part in the virtual world. There are no police (the governments can control some webspace (ie. China) but for now the internet is at large unregulated), there are no physical boundaries, and people now have an anonymous identity where everyone can talk as equals disregarding age, gender, race and class. These critical aspects of cyberspace is what makes it so unique - it is basically a world entirely separate from reality.
Poster's first discussion underlines the difference between cyberspace and reality, and the two different boundaries and norms. He asks: "...if new ethical rules are required for mediated culture, perhaps the earlier system of ethics was itself flawed..." I think this is a very interesting question, as it attempts to explore just how much of cyberspace can be compared to reality - and if the laws we have today are suitable and adequate enough. Poster also references Nietzsche's approach, in which Nietzsche defines ethics as a historical construction. He also points out the "standpoint of the group is crucial to the type of morality it will create." The 'group' refers to 'the noble' or people in power -in our case, we have governments which create the laws for society to abide by. This leads to my first question: Do you agree with Nietzche's approach, and why?
Poster next describes the pitfalls of the openness of the internet with things such as spamming and flaming. Censorship is also an important issue - including things such as religion and pornography(discussed in the other articles for this week). Censorship is continually pushed in cyberspace - for example one surgeon in the article decided to broadcast on the internet a live surgery of a sex change operation. There has also been other cases which have raised questions over the morals of broadcasting questionable content online. This is slightly on a tangent but I recently saw the movie 'Untraceable' which also has a strong theme of internet morality in it - in fact the whole plot is based on the immense power of the internet and the ability of the public to control what happens on it. People are naturally curious, and because of the openness of the internet(and the almighty Google), people can look up and research anything they want. Protection of young children and teenagers may also come into context here - Poster raises the question of the ethics of child pornography and the downloading of pornography online. This leads to my next question...
Has the public/private changed alongside the growing rise of new media? In fact, is anything private anymore?? Just thinking of sites like Facebook...once information is stored on a database its hard to get rid of. Furthermore there is the issue of the distribution of personal photos and such...
Anonymity is also a very interesting concept in relation to cyberspace. We talked about the case of ICERED a few weeks ago, and that touched on internet ethics and the abundance of extreme views and opinions online. I posted in the comments for one of the other presentations a while ago, but I think the most widely known anonymous forum today is 4chan.org - mainly because it is the source of a lot of controversy and internet fads (most arising from the /b/ board). They are often associated with hackers, and they call themselves 'Anonymous'. Most recently, there was the case of Sarah Palin's yahoo account being hacked by a forumer from that site. Not only did this question the right of privacy, the anonymity of the forum meant all the users could post whatever they wanted without being prosecuted. It also resulted in masses of users attempting to log in to the account, and screenshots being broadcasted of the inbox etc. Read more about it here (the comments section has an interesting discussion about internet ethics and anonymity too!!).
So from this example, anonymity online clearly changes the way people interact with each other, as well as the actions people take. I still remember a few months ago, there was the Youtube scandal of those 6 girls who beat up this other girl at a house in order to gain 'Youtube fame'. Arising from this, some people were posting phone numbers and myspace pages of the accused alongside Youtube videos - resulting in death threats and mass calls from all over the world. Some say the internet "promotes irresponsibility", while others think freedom of speech - no matter what the opinion - is a human right. Of course some of society's culture can transfer on into cyberspace - "netiquette" is a term used to describe how one should behave when online. Anonymity is clearly an important factor when looking at morals online though - the freedoms the internet gives everyone allows people to express their true feelings and thoughts without much consequence. There are pitfalls from this utopian ideal of free speech though - of course not everyone will agree with everything that is suggested online. So from this, I ask:
Has the anonymity on the internet altered your identity online at all (eg. on forums, in online games, commenting on a blog etc.)? Have you taken advantage of anonymity online, and have you been able to express yourself more through the medium?
Identity is further discussed in Poster's essay, with our real life identity compared to the online one. In conclusion, Poster urges us to think about Nietzsche's approach of the good and the bad of the virtual world. With cultural transformation, ethics may also evolve to suit cyberspace - especially through the aspiration for an enhancement of life. Politics are now very much involved with the ethics online - especially since the internet has cut all bounfaries between people of different cultures and countries. It seems politics will continue to be strongly linked to the ethics of cyberspace - linking not just individuals, but communities together in terms of power. This leads to my final question:
Do you think the internet should be regulated, and why?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Week 8 Tutorial Presentation
The article “Diary of a Webdiarist: Ethics goes online”, written by Margo Kingston, explores the issue concerning the ethics of online journalism. This is discussed in terms of how online ethics are applied, who is responsible for maintaining these ethics and some of the problems that can arise in the area of online journalism and how these problems are overcome from the experience of the journalist Margo Kingston. The article is divided into four main parts each examining a different area of online ethics. These four parts include a general overview of online ethics followed by three sections entitled Nom De Plumes, Offensive Material, Conflicts of Interest and Plagiarism and Corrections.
The article begins with a discussion of the interaction that the internet makes possible between journalists and readers. In the case of Kingston she’s sees this interaction as “a big plus for readers” (p. 160). Kingston acknowledges that with this interaction that she is able to enjoy with her readers via email came a set of new responsibilities when she decided to publish these emails. Kingston had total control over what appeared on her Webdiary and with that she realised she was the one who would be held accountable for any problems that may have been encountered. Thus Kingston encountered the concept of online ethics when she was forced to transform her “ethical considerations” (p. 160) in accordance with online journalism. I found in this article that online ethics are a largely ambiguous concept in that they appear to be wholly at the discretion of the author.
This brought up the relationship between ethics, power and trust. Kingston desired to create a space in which there would be mutual trust between herself and her readers. Moreso she did not want a space in which her readers found themselves to be powerless. The issue of power seems to be one of the key problem areas in the journalist reader relationship. To this end Kingston published those emails that were critical of herself, her style and her substance. As these responses as well as complaints were published it meant that Kingston’s online ethics were able to evolve “in consultation with readers” (p. 164). It was through Kingston’s interaction with readers that forced her to both clarify and justify her ethical stance when it came to journalism, especially when it was conducted online.
Writing under nom de plumes is the next issue Kingston considers. Unlike newspapers Kingston is willing to publish comments that are made anonymously, written under nom de plumes, as long as they do not consist of personal slurs or serious allegations. She does however ask that those publishing comments under a nom de plume give reasons as to why they are doing so. This stance by Kingston, in terms of people justifying writing under a nom de plume, came about due to criticism of her publishing anonymous comments.
The next two sections covered are offensive material and conflicts of interest respectively. Kingston takes a relaxed stance when it comes to offensive material stating that “it is a deliberate choice to log on” (p. 167). The article highlights that everyone will have different opinions on what constitutes an offensive comment and it is largely impossible to please everyone with what you write. Some will find fault in what you say and others will find reasons for praise. Racism is the key offensive issue with which Kingston tackles. Her position is that issues surrounding race are a means of people with opposing views to come together.
The matter of conflicts of interest is dealt with briefly by Kingston in an extract from her Webdiary. This issue links back with the matter of trust that was pointed out earlier in the article. This topic involves a trust that people who comment on Webdiary disclose information that could have led to them holding their particular opinion, for example any bias or prejudice that the reader may have held.
The last issue discussed is plagiarism and corrections. The issue of plagiarism is one to which the internet is particularly prone. This is both with people publishing false information and people making false allegations from what they read online. Kingston emphasises the fact that she and she alone has the responsibility for making sure that her work is accurate. Overall this accountability on the part of Kingston has led to a positive response on the part of the public.
Questions to think over:
Do you agree that ethics and trust amount to the same thing?
What are your opinions of comments posted anonymously online? Does a name attached make a comment more or less credible?
What are your feelings on online journalism?
The article begins with a discussion of the interaction that the internet makes possible between journalists and readers. In the case of Kingston she’s sees this interaction as “a big plus for readers” (p. 160). Kingston acknowledges that with this interaction that she is able to enjoy with her readers via email came a set of new responsibilities when she decided to publish these emails. Kingston had total control over what appeared on her Webdiary and with that she realised she was the one who would be held accountable for any problems that may have been encountered. Thus Kingston encountered the concept of online ethics when she was forced to transform her “ethical considerations” (p. 160) in accordance with online journalism. I found in this article that online ethics are a largely ambiguous concept in that they appear to be wholly at the discretion of the author.
This brought up the relationship between ethics, power and trust. Kingston desired to create a space in which there would be mutual trust between herself and her readers. Moreso she did not want a space in which her readers found themselves to be powerless. The issue of power seems to be one of the key problem areas in the journalist reader relationship. To this end Kingston published those emails that were critical of herself, her style and her substance. As these responses as well as complaints were published it meant that Kingston’s online ethics were able to evolve “in consultation with readers” (p. 164). It was through Kingston’s interaction with readers that forced her to both clarify and justify her ethical stance when it came to journalism, especially when it was conducted online.
Writing under nom de plumes is the next issue Kingston considers. Unlike newspapers Kingston is willing to publish comments that are made anonymously, written under nom de plumes, as long as they do not consist of personal slurs or serious allegations. She does however ask that those publishing comments under a nom de plume give reasons as to why they are doing so. This stance by Kingston, in terms of people justifying writing under a nom de plume, came about due to criticism of her publishing anonymous comments.
The next two sections covered are offensive material and conflicts of interest respectively. Kingston takes a relaxed stance when it comes to offensive material stating that “it is a deliberate choice to log on” (p. 167). The article highlights that everyone will have different opinions on what constitutes an offensive comment and it is largely impossible to please everyone with what you write. Some will find fault in what you say and others will find reasons for praise. Racism is the key offensive issue with which Kingston tackles. Her position is that issues surrounding race are a means of people with opposing views to come together.
The matter of conflicts of interest is dealt with briefly by Kingston in an extract from her Webdiary. This issue links back with the matter of trust that was pointed out earlier in the article. This topic involves a trust that people who comment on Webdiary disclose information that could have led to them holding their particular opinion, for example any bias or prejudice that the reader may have held.
The last issue discussed is plagiarism and corrections. The issue of plagiarism is one to which the internet is particularly prone. This is both with people publishing false information and people making false allegations from what they read online. Kingston emphasises the fact that she and she alone has the responsibility for making sure that her work is accurate. Overall this accountability on the part of Kingston has led to a positive response on the part of the public.
Questions to think over:
Do you agree that ethics and trust amount to the same thing?
What are your opinions of comments posted anonymously online? Does a name attached make a comment more or less credible?
What are your feelings on online journalism?
week 8 presentation
Week 8 - The Ethics of Porn of the Net
This is an interesting article that questions pornography on the internet. Kath Albury undertook research in the field of, “representations of heterosexuality in media and popular culture”. She raises several questions regarding moral and ethically standards in the pornographic world of the internet.
The article begins with Albury asking the underlying question of the article, ‘What is wrong with pornography?’ In answering this question, Albury makes it clear that one must look to the question of morality between the different sectors of society. Firstly she makes reference to Judeo-Christian’s who share a rather conservative view regarding pornography. They strongly believe that sex is something private between married couples, and should be kept in the bedroom. They believe that pornography encourages immoral sex and is therefore immoral. She then presents the Marxist view, which is somewhat similar to a radical feminist view. Essentially the Marxist view is one which believes that ‘porn performers’ are alienated from experiencing their own sexuality since their job is the performance of sex therefore making it labour rather than something which should be for recreation or procreation. Albury then goes on to discuss the feminist approach to pornography making it clear that the vast majority of feminists (largely radical) believe that pornography promotes the exploitation of women. She goes on to say that pornography encourages a sexualised view of women by men (the prime group who access porn) and makes women appear as more of a commodity therefore allowing them to be objectified.
Albury then goes on to discuss that while porn on the internet may be considered immoral and perhaps even unethical, it does allow for certain sub-sections of society to express themselves. In terms of mainstream pornography it is clear that they favour a rather unrealistic beauty, i.e. women with ‘silicone implants, taut aerobicised loins, fake tan, false nails, big hair and Brazilian waxes’, when the reality is that this ideal is far from the natural attributes of everyday women. Through pornography, largely via the influx of amateur pornography producers, women and men are able to move away from perceived norms and express themselves for their own unique sexual beauty. Albury makes reference to several websites that encourage a different view of the sexualised woman and man, for example the ‘hair to stay’ website, which encourages women to embrace their natural beauty including their bodily hair.
She concludes the article by questioning whether pornography on the internet is unethical. Essentially it is up to the individual person based on their own beliefs and opinions to decide whether porn on the internet is unethical. This is an interesting article that calls into question a rather controversial issue. Personally I am unsure where I stand regarding this topic. I do agree with the feminist approach presented in terms of the sexualisation of women and how mainstream pornography largely promotes a rather unrealistic woman, therefore often sending out the wrong message. However I am a supporter of freedom of expression, so provided the pornography does not overstep the law it is up the individual to do as they please.
This is an interesting topic and I am excited to hear your opinions. Some questions to consider would be firstly what is your opinion of pornography on the internet? Do you believe it to be immoral or rather as an opportunity for people to express themselves via another form on the internet? Also perhaps it would be interesting to look at your personal beliefs regarding the moral and ethical arguments that surround the issue.
I look forward to hearing your responses.
This is an interesting article that questions pornography on the internet. Kath Albury undertook research in the field of, “representations of heterosexuality in media and popular culture”. She raises several questions regarding moral and ethically standards in the pornographic world of the internet.
The article begins with Albury asking the underlying question of the article, ‘What is wrong with pornography?’ In answering this question, Albury makes it clear that one must look to the question of morality between the different sectors of society. Firstly she makes reference to Judeo-Christian’s who share a rather conservative view regarding pornography. They strongly believe that sex is something private between married couples, and should be kept in the bedroom. They believe that pornography encourages immoral sex and is therefore immoral. She then presents the Marxist view, which is somewhat similar to a radical feminist view. Essentially the Marxist view is one which believes that ‘porn performers’ are alienated from experiencing their own sexuality since their job is the performance of sex therefore making it labour rather than something which should be for recreation or procreation. Albury then goes on to discuss the feminist approach to pornography making it clear that the vast majority of feminists (largely radical) believe that pornography promotes the exploitation of women. She goes on to say that pornography encourages a sexualised view of women by men (the prime group who access porn) and makes women appear as more of a commodity therefore allowing them to be objectified.
Albury then goes on to discuss that while porn on the internet may be considered immoral and perhaps even unethical, it does allow for certain sub-sections of society to express themselves. In terms of mainstream pornography it is clear that they favour a rather unrealistic beauty, i.e. women with ‘silicone implants, taut aerobicised loins, fake tan, false nails, big hair and Brazilian waxes’, when the reality is that this ideal is far from the natural attributes of everyday women. Through pornography, largely via the influx of amateur pornography producers, women and men are able to move away from perceived norms and express themselves for their own unique sexual beauty. Albury makes reference to several websites that encourage a different view of the sexualised woman and man, for example the ‘hair to stay’ website, which encourages women to embrace their natural beauty including their bodily hair.
She concludes the article by questioning whether pornography on the internet is unethical. Essentially it is up to the individual person based on their own beliefs and opinions to decide whether porn on the internet is unethical. This is an interesting article that calls into question a rather controversial issue. Personally I am unsure where I stand regarding this topic. I do agree with the feminist approach presented in terms of the sexualisation of women and how mainstream pornography largely promotes a rather unrealistic woman, therefore often sending out the wrong message. However I am a supporter of freedom of expression, so provided the pornography does not overstep the law it is up the individual to do as they please.
This is an interesting topic and I am excited to hear your opinions. Some questions to consider would be firstly what is your opinion of pornography on the internet? Do you believe it to be immoral or rather as an opportunity for people to express themselves via another form on the internet? Also perhaps it would be interesting to look at your personal beliefs regarding the moral and ethical arguments that surround the issue.
I look forward to hearing your responses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)