Podcast transcript: Ethics
This podcast is part of the UCIL Digital Society course from the University of Manchester running in 2019/20 semester 2. The story it relates to is hosted on Medium and can be found here.
In this podcast Amala and Naman from the Library Student Team review the topic, The individual, identity and ethics, with help from your comments.
TRANSCRIPT
Hi, I’m Amala from the Library Student Team, and I’m here with my fellow Student Team colleague, Naman.
This week’s topic centered around ethics and I really enjoyed learning your perspectives — together with Naman, I am going to be elaborating on some of the themes discussed.
It can be difficult to distinguish between what is right and wrong in terms of digital existence and find our place within it. In this topic you have explored questions such as — ‘How does the individual exist within our networked digital society?’, ‘How do we control our online identity?’, ‘Can we apply offline ethics to online?’
The first question we asked you was — ‘Do you think that we can apply the same rules to our online lives as we do to our offline lives?’. Nearly half of you said ‘No’, with ‘Unsure’ being the second most popular answer. So there seems to be a consensus that the online rules are different but how do we determine what they are?
Secondly, we asked you — ‘What issues do you think are “aggravated, transformed or created” by the internet?’ Many of you pointed out the dangers to security and prevalence of fraud as major issues. The wealth of information available makes it easier for people to exploit personal data of others. Another major issue you identified is cyber bullying. As one of you pointed out, “Cyber bullying is easier to do, because it can be done anonymously and the person bullying can feel more disconnected from what they are doing”. Several people gave examples of risks and threats they’d experienced online. Lastly, another contributor noted that the issue of addiction is a serious one, as we devote more and more time to our online lives. You’ve done a great job identifying just some of the dangers lurking on the Internet, and some of the tricky questions that arise from interacting in a digital world.
Next we considered the permanence and longevity of our behaviour online. There are many cases where a celebrity has been condemned for statements they made in their youth but which were saved on the Internet. We considered the idea of the ‘right to be forgotten’ — whether we should be able to erase our online histories later on, so they can’t haunt us as adults. We asked you a question — ‘Should the online actions of our childhoods be assessed differently from those of our adulthood?’ — and an overwhelming majority of you answered ‘Yes’. This connected to the next prompt — ‘The words and actions we share online are difficult to erase. Does the eternal memory of the Internet allow individuals to change their opinions, improve their behaviours and grow as human beings? Where do we draw the line on which past actions are forgivable or permissible?’. One of you summarised the general consensus in a very eloquent way — “Unfortunately we live in a “Gotcha” world where if we see someone hold a view or act in a certain way, we want to see if they have been consistent for their entire life. […] When reviewing the past actions of people, we should take into consideration their age, the time/situation it was stated and how likely they are to think the same now. Without these important contextual information, we can misjudge something to be absurdly wrong when it is edgy teenage humour.”
Next section centred around Data Security, which many of you have already identified as a potential issue. We discussed the case of the Panama Papers, where documents showing Mossack Fonseca clients partake in money laundering and tax avoidance, were leaked. We asked you to answer the question — Is Ramon Fonseca right to say his company’s information was stolen and this is the real crime? All of you seemed to share the opinion that while the breach of privacy was a crime we should not forget the crime which it uncovered. One of you summarised it perfectly — “I think that it is clear that this is a breach of privacy and a crime, the context does not change this fact. However, it is also clear that the information leaked showed the misdeeds of people who also committed crimes. It is understandable why no one was upset that these documents were leaked even though it is breaking the law and the right to privacy. I think it is important that this was brought to light, but I would have preferred it to have been given to some authority which could prosecute these people rather than out to the public.”
The next question posed to you was centered around the Ashley Madison case, where information was leaked but the company committed no illegal acts. However, their service enabled individuals to look for affairs which is morally questionable. Therefore, we asked you — Do we feel differently about the Ashley Madison leak and if so, why? Someone responded — “Cheating is morally wrong, but it is not illegal. This is a privacy invasion which is not justified. Getting rid of Ashley Madison isn’t going to stop people from cheating, they’ll find other ways.” and many of you agreed with that sentiment. However, one person’s feelings were different as they thought that — “It is wrong to breach someone’s privacy but I also feel as though it was justified because it is morally wrong. I would argue that these leaks should be based on moral rather than legal standards, although this would give ultimate moral say-so to the person with the potential to leak information.” — this is a very interesting perspective which invites many further questions of who has the say in what ‘moral’ or ‘justifiable’ is.
Lastly, we spoke about the discourse between freedom of speech and abuse, bullying and trolling. Earlier in this topic many of you pointed out the danger of bullying on the Internet and how anonymity contributes to it. We asked you to define ‘trolling’, that is, the action of creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels and all of you had a good grasp on this concept. Sometimes however, it can be hard to agree whether online disagreements are ‘trolling’ or a valid expression of opinion.
In this topic we have discussed the difference in online and offline behaviour and the ethics of existing online. This is a very complex topic with a multitude of opinions and perspectives. We really enjoyed all of your contributions and hope you found this topic interesting.
Leave your comments and let us know what you think about this topic. Enjoy the rest of your course!
