.png "Rita van Haren")
Rita van Haren
Stacie Bernasconi
Lance Lameyse
Haley Nicholson 
Kylie McCabe
Jennifer Hernandez
Grant St. MartinWin18_Phil302 Cyberethics’s Updates
Lesson 13: The dark side of social media
Module 8, Lesson 13—The Dark Side of Social Media
In 2004 the first Web 2.0 conference was held by O’Reilly Media to brainstorm some of the ideas and products we now take for granted online. Web 2.0 includes things like Torrents, Wikis blogging, social networking, etc. where all seen as a major advance allowing for more personal participation and authorship for users online. Technology rarely stands still and a new kind of web that includes things like augmented reality and robotics is on the way. But that is still some time off so we will talk about that in a later lesson. Web 2.0 is a mature technology that we work in on a daily basis. To get a sense of how these forms of information technology has impacted moral values please read section 2 to 2.3 of Information Technology and Moral Values .
The dark side of online communication: Trolls, Griefing, and Cyberstalking
Have you ever said or posted something online that was uncharacteristically mean or petty? Of course you have, we all do it. It happens because there are so few constraints on our behavior online. In the physical world we would never say or do the things we regularly do online because in the real world we have a number of constraints on behavior. Physical walls or distance constrains who we interact with. Market constraints prevent us from doing or saying many things we might want to. Laws can punish us for assault and battery or worse behavior, if we get out of hand. Religious and social mores which are enforced by the accusing glances and comments of people around us keep us from saying rude and thoughtless things. And ethical beliefs stand as an additional level of self-control. Online very few of these constraints are in play. There are no physical walls and skilled hackers can easily bust through any constraint built into the software. Online activity takes place in a cyber-world where determining what laws and what jurisdictions apply to any given event can be quite difficult. Market constraints are lower since information technology is always lowering the cost to entry online. Religious and social mores are also tough given the international nature of most online interactions. Finally online anonymity, asynchronous communication, and our failure to fully imagine the agency of others we encounter only online added to all of the above makes it possible for one to do and say things that no one can hold them accountable for without great effort.
The tendency we all have to act out when we realize there are few constraints online is called the Online Disinhibition Effect by psychologists. This is not to say that nothing bad ever happens outside of the internet, but what we are finding is that people who might never act out in the real world will do so online. Where one might never want to drive to the bad side of town, get out of the car and risk being seen entering a seedy establishment to buy hard core porn, if it is just a few clicks away and no one will ever know, then the temptation is much greater to take a look. If one would never risk the fist fight that would be associated with shouting out racist comments in public, the physical safety of the online setting can tempt one to express their inner racist. Online disinhibition is a major cause of unethical behavior online. This will only decrease as it becomes harder to maintain anonymity online. But, as we learned in the reading we did in lesson 11, the early designers of the web so highly valued anonymity and free speech so highly that they built it into the very core architecture of the internet so it is going to take a great deal of expensive reengineering to change this. This means that the last line of effective behavior control available to us is the personal moral and ethical values of internet users. Only through personal training and contemplation of these values can we expect any change in online behavior. This will be difficult as we can see that much online behavior acts like a reverse virtue ethics. You surround yourself with uninhibited unethical people and you build unthinking habits that express sexist, homophobic, and racist reactions. To reverse that process you would need to consciously choose online communities where you interacted using your real identity and everyone was working to build ethical habits and reactions.
Trolls, Griefers and Cyberstalkers are some of the neologisms created by the online community to pick out those who engage in particularly egregious behavior. If you have spent any time online at all you have run into these people (note that sometimes they are not actually people but bots programed to behave badly, like Trollbot). But if you are lucky enough to have never encountered this behavior and do not know what these words refer to, read Internet Troll, Griefing, Cyberstalking, Hater (Internet).
Please read this article on the design of games to limit trolling and griefing: How developers deal with griefers, by Simon Hill. And this article on how to be an ethical game player: Nine Tips for Nurturing Ethical Play, by Seann Dikkers
Computers and inequality: The digital divide
Another promise of the early net was that information technologies could be made so cheaply that everyone in the world would be able to participate in the new global knowledge economy. There have been a number of surprising barriers that prevented this from happening and these have created a number of “digital divides” between people. Some of these divides happen between people who are excluded from partaking in the internet at any level. The UN agency for telecommunication estimates that roughly one billion people on the planet have no access whatsoever to any kind of information technology, even old technology like fixed land line telephones. But there are other divides where a community might have one kind of technology but not another, including odd outcomes like the fact that the developing world has four times as many mobile subscribers per one hundred people than the developing world, but those statistics are reversed for fixed land line phones. This means that if you were to make a website that did not function well for mobile users, you have effectively shut out most of the developing world from your site and you have contributed to the digital divide. People on the wrong side of the digital divide are excluded from many of the economic opportunities afforded to those on the net. They are social excluded from participating in the development of online culture. And they are socially marginalized as their life experiences become almost invisible to their cousins on the net.
Digital Divide between nations—even if you are working hard to engage net users from the developing world, we are still confronted with the fact that the people using the web in the G8 countries (the eight richest countries in the world), the number of people using the net in the G8 is roughly equivalent to the number of people using the net in all other countries combined, even though their populations are much lower. This means that your average citizen in the developing world does not have much contact with the net.
Digital Divide within nations—there are divides within the developed world as well. While nearly everyone in the developed world has potential access to the net, their experiences may differ greatly due to economic factors. For example, a student who has her own laptop, phone, and tablet, will be able to do much more on an assignment than one who only has limited access to a school computer.
Please view: The State of Digital Divides (Video and Slides) compiled by the Pew Research Center. (Feel free to look at any of the other resources found on that page as well).
Finally, read this paper: Digital Ethics in Bridging Digital Divide, by Subhajit Basu, Queen's University Belfast
Assignment 20, Writing reflection (200-400 words) posted to the comments section below—Using the ethical values that we have studied in this course so far, construct an argument against Trolls, Griefers, and Cyberstalkers and one against the various digital divides. Can you think of any way to justify either of these issues?
Assignment 20:
There is no way to justify an Internet Troll, cyberstalker, or griefer. They are intentionally doing bad over the Internet with no ethical reasoning. Trolls will post comments via social media on purpose to start fights or rile people up to where they fight back. I see this every day on social media whether it be about politics, appearance, or beliefs. People can be so cruel over the Internet because they are behind a screen and they think no physical harm can be done to them. They are cyberbullies who make themselves feel better based on how much harm they can create others. Trolling is a way to project your issues onto others. Cyberstalking is a different situation. While trolling in no way shape or form is considered ethical, cyberstalking can be based on the situation presented. If someone is stalking another person via the Internet for good, it can be considered ethical. If someone was creating harm and another person was trying to track them down, that could be considered ethical. If someone was cyberstalking to cause harm, that would be unethical. It all depends on the situation.
ASSIGNMENT 20
There is no ethical justification for online trolls, griefers, or cyberstalkers. All three of these things have no moral or ethical gain. Internet trolls have the sole purpose to negatively bother other people online. There is no positive version of an internet troll. Trolls generally do what they do because they are looking for a reaction out of others. They feed off of the reactions that they get out of people on the internet. Internet trolls are online bullies. I see instances of this almost every day on social media platforms. I believe that internet trolls have deeper problems that they have not figured out in their real lives, so they hide themselves behind a computer screen and bully others to make themselves feel better. Trolling others makes some people feel better about themselves. This unethical behavior may not seem harmful to others, but the trolls don’t know how their words and actions effect the people receiving these comments. Many people commit suicide every day because of bullies. I think that trolls don't see their part in their wrongdoings because when they are behind a computer screen, they do not view themselves as who they really are. They hide their identities on these media platforms to escape their real life.
Some excellent posts here. Thanks for taking the time to give me some more things to think about.
Assignment 20:
Griefer’s and trolls are obviously unethical from the viewpoint of consequentialism in that they are not benefitting anyone. In fact, they are impairing people’s abilities to play a game. This is also unethical from virtue ethics in that griefer’s and trolls do not hold themselves to some moral standard online. They do not think about others in the sense of helping each other out. They are, in fact, doing the opposite of taking care of other players and preventing them from an optimal experience. This can hardly even be justified by ethical egoism in that they are not even just thinking about themselves, they are directly thinking about others and how to annoy them. The only thing I can see what they think they are gaining and how they are benefiting is pure amusement for themselves.
With all of the constant influx of new technology, those who are not accustomed to technology at all are bound to get frustrated and avoid the internet altogether, which contributes to the digital divide. One of the reasons for not using the internet was those who claimed they were “too old to use it.” The older generation included in this category are at high risk of unemployment if unable to adapt to the changing ways and already at risk due to potential age discrimination. Another population group of the digital divide are those who only have access to public computers. They are at a lesser advantage in keeping up with work in the fast-paced school environment compared to those who have access to the internet through their phones and personal laptops. I think it is unethical for schools to easily adapt their lessons based on the quick access we now have to information. Not all classes have been like this, but for some, the expectations get higher and expectations to complete work, quicker. The classes I find most successful are those who offer a book along with media that is shown in class. The lessons should be based on inclusion of what Subhajit Basu calls “the rest.” “The rest” do not have this easy access to information and the immense advantage of having easy access to information technology. As for the older generation being pushed toward unemployment and a low income living, they need a place to have a chance to learn about information technology. It is really unethical not to provide some kind of alternative to this population so that they can simply live a comfortable rest of their life. Most of this is based from the ethics of care theory where relationships with others and caring for others are the backbone of a moral person. In considering those on the other side of the digital divide, and even beyond these couple of population groups, the digital divide can lesson and create more inclusion in this world that now relies on technology.
Cyberstalkers put people’s safety at risk. Even if cyberstalkers do not continue the stalking into real life (which they often do), it still instills fear and stress into the individual being harassed. Like trolls and griefer’s, this benefits no one except for maybe some amusement or satisfaction on the cyberstalker’s part. Consequentialism, virtue ethics, and ethics of care this is unethical. Some people may be acting from a deontological point of view where they feel it is their duty to harass an individual or organization for doing something they feel is morally corrupt. To them, it may be an ethical act. It is safe to say though that this is not rational at that no one should be harassed and threatened, especially repeatedly. Also, when it comes to the internet there are not many places to hide. There are so many different mediums to contact others when it comes to the internet that it is difficult to block all sources. When all sources are blocked, that is when the changes of real life stalking really increase. So even if they do feel it is their duty, it is unethical and they are not to decide a person’s actions are subject to harassment.
Assignment #20
After going over many theories in this course I cannot find any theory that would justify Trolls, Griefers, and Cyberstalkers. Most of the reasoning behind why these people do what they do is because they themselves are insecure. They are choosing the an unethical way to figure out what is going wrong in their lives and taking out on others behind a screen. In my opinion, the Internet has made it easier for bulling to take place because these cowards can just hide behind a screen. They say these awful things to people and have no filter at all because they are hidden and protected behind a screen in their own homes. In situations like these no one is happy not even the bully spreading the hate. Although they may think bullying will make them happier all it is, is adding more fuel to the flame of fire. This is highly unethical for all parties stuck in this situation and there is by no means and justification for it.
Assignment 20:
Regarding the case of Trolls, Griefers, and Cyberstalkers, one could argue that an ethical standpoint justifying these individuals' actions would be ethical egoism in combination with deontology. While ethical egoism demands one singular person acting upon his/her individual best interest, deontological thinking provides the individual with the belief that acting upon his/her own moral compass (the Right) outweighs the outcome (the Good). Combine these two schools of ethical values, and you get an outcome of a singular person acting out in his/her best interest with disregard for the consequences of their actions. It is hard to understand that these people are acting out in any ethical way, but it is important to know that they are using manipulated deviations of common ethical values to justify their actions. However, it is easy to use these same values to argue against these antagonizers. One could say that these people are not acting with ethical egoism in mind because their egoism is not promoting any sort of ethical action within those around them. Instead, they are acting in their own best interest by putting other participants down for their own satisfaction. On the other hand, one could also say that these people are not acting with deontological thinking because, although they are seriously disregarding any repercussions, they are not acting out for what is right. On the grounds of the digital divides, it's very hard to create a world wide web that serves each and every platform. However, if one were to attempt to minimize the digital divide, taking a utilitarian standpoint would be key. This would mean potentially dumbing down popular websites to create interfaces that would be easy for somebody with less advanced technology to access. By dumbing down, I mean limiting the content imposed on that website – like taking off flash-related advertisements and add-ons, creating mainly read only content, and removing other content or add-ons that may make it slower to load and harder to access from less advanced tech (whether it be mobile devices or slower internet). On the other hand, this would mean taking those features away from those who are technologically advanced. So the question of whether or not the digital divide can be tackled in an ethical manner is highly questionable.
Assignment 20
I will be using the egoist ethical theory to construct an argument against trolls, griefers, and cyber stalkers. All of these types of internet users, do what is in their own self-interest to receive pleasure from potentially harming someone else. Internet trolls are self-interested in provoking a negative response from others, and that is wrong. Internet trolls comments can really offend others. Griefers sabotage their own team members for their own pleasure, this leads to the team members distrusting the griefers. Cyber stalking is very unsafe. Cyberstalking can lead a person to actually find another person in real life and potentially kill them. All of these internet users are unethical.
An argument against the various digital divides, because of the digital divides, some individuals do not receive all of the benefits of the internet. Using the utilitarianism ethical theory, the digital divide prevents the most amount of people receiving the good uses of the net.
I can only justify digital divides, because, sometimes the grass is greener on the other side. Although technology and the internet have given us so many benefits, in a way, the internet has consumed our lives. We wake up and the first thing we grab is our phones. People who are on the other side of the digital divide who may not be able to access the net, whether because of where they live or economic reasons, might be better off. We have forgotten the days where kids can go outside and be entertained without a technological device.
Assignment 20
All of these internet harassers have real life equivalents and have just evolved with time like the internet itself has. It stems from greed, jealousy, self-consciousness and malice. These people bring others down to make themselves feel better and the only way to make it stop would be to go to where the behavior begins. You are taught from a very young age about self-confidence and how to treat people with respect and kindness, something must have gone wrong along the way to make people who choose to bully others through the internet and in real life to “behave badly”. We should not promote people being better than one another, being prettier, more successful, etc. But ultimately we cannot take out the bad qualities every person does have in some form inside of them because it is inherently in our culture as a sinful and imperfect race (the human race). Through relativism it is best for most to be kind and do good because that keeps as many people from being bullied through the internet. I do not think making yourself feel better at the expense of another’s feelings no matter how bad they are is acceptable or justifiable. Treat others the way you wish to be treated.
Assignment # 20 Trolls, Grievers and Cyber stalkers are those who are aggressively practicing unethical behavior. They are those who create catty and mean behavior on the web to try to get a reaction from someone (often anyone) who responds. Trolls and grievers lack ethics of care, because they recognizably decide to upset people for fun or for pleasure and they do not have any moral caution for the consequences. Digital divides are also an unethical way to produce product to the world because when you build something that only a advantaged group of people can use, you are cutting other off from having accessibility to use the same product. This becomes a problem because opportunities are presented to some not to others. Under utilitarianism, you would have to provide a benefit to as many people as possible with the product, making digital divides and unethical business practice. I think the only to justify digital divide is by a site really causing direct harm or undue stress on people. I think the way that people justify trolling is by claiming that they are practicing their right to free speech. This justification allows them to make harsh remarks and get reactions from people. While I do not think this is kind to do, I do think their comments are protected under the constitution as long as it does not cause direct harm to another person or threaten their life.
Assignment 20
I think the only way one could attempt to justify these issues were if they were used for “correct” reasons such as checking the whereabouts of a dangerous person—this could protect you. However, that wouldn’t really be considered Cyberstalking since it wouldn’t be as frequent or in-depth, or for purposes of harm. Ethically, these acts are wrong, because they don’t improve the well-being of the person doing them nor of the greater good. They are senseless acts on an ethical level. They reveal the dark side of humanity; the side that goes crazy with too much “freedom” and too few consequences, like the Online Disinhibition Effect describes. They allow humans to develop immoral characteristics by participating in unethical acts, the likes of which they don’t really have access to in the real physical world. If we apply ethical principles of the real world onto the virtual actions of cyberstalkers, trolls, and griefers, their actions would far surpass the level of amorality required to send people to prison in real life. But, the law treats online actions as less-than-real, like a subreality, where regular law doesn’t apply. For this reason I don’t believe it possible to justify these issues, especially when holding them to the moral code of the real world.