| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
|
|
<
< | The Internet’s Freedom Borders |
>
> | Internet, Software & Ethics |
| | -- By DeborahLuengoSchreck - 24 Oct 2024 |
|
<
< | Introduction |
>
> | The “internet” is a global system of interconnected computer networks and electronic devices that facilitates communication through standardized protocols. This infrastructure enables data transmission across great distances, fostering a “network of networks” that connects billions of users worldwide. The internet is not necessarily understood as a fixed or tangible entity but as a dynamic, multiform system of interconnection among individuals and communities mediated by complex software and digital architecture layers. |
| | |
|
<
< | Since its start, the Internet has been one of the most transformative technological advancements of the modern era. It has revolutionized communication, commerce, education, entertainment, and activism, providing a platform for individuals and organizations to connect and express ideas without geographic or temporal limitations, giving us more freedom than ever. |
>
> | On the other hand, the software operates as both a tool and a medium. Unlike physical technologies, software is inherently abstract, only defined by lines of code and algorithms that dictate behavior invisibly. This opacity creates a unique challenge: the mechanism that connects us often goes unexamined, allowing individuals to use it without truly understanding it. However, instead of engaging with the nature of the software itself—its code, structure, and mechanics—it is more important to consider its social effects. |
| | |
|
<
< | However, with this unprecedented freedom comes an important ethical dilemma. If the internet is to remain “real” as an open space, it must also be able to host all content, no matter how dangerous. This notion conflicts with the regulatory frameworks that many governments and international organizations have attempted to implement to safeguard the public from harmful content. The question arises whether regulation of the internet—even when well-intentioned—contradicts the nature of what it is supposed to be. |
>
> | By focusing less on “what” the software is and more on its social consequences, we can reorient the ethical discussion toward the human relationships it mediates. Software becomes a lens to explore equity, accountability, and empathy questions in our increasingly interconnected lives. |
| | |
|
<
< | The Power of Neutrality |
>
> | Ethics in a Software-Connected World |
| | |
|
<
< | At the center of the Internet’s power is its neutrality. Therefore, in theory, the internet does not differentiate between the content it hosts. Every individual or corporation is granted the same access to publish their opinions or share information. The idea of net neutrality, which ensures that Internet service providers treat all data equally regardless of its kind, source, or destination, reflects the foundation of the Internet’s openness and freedom. This principle is crucial to the Internet’s democratization, allowing users to access the web without restrictions or gatekeepers. |
>
> | The ethical issues that arise in a software-mediated world are multifaceted, reflecting the broad impact of digital technologies on human relationships. |
| | |
|
<
< | However, this neutrality, which empowers people to push boundaries, positively makes human behavior’s darker aspects visible. Human trafficking rings, child pornography networks, and illegal organ sales are some of the activities that thrive on the other side of the web, particularly on the so-called “dark web”. These activities highlight the paradox of the internet: to be completely free, it must be accessible to its wrongfulness. |
>
> | One of these issues concerns maintaining equity in algorithmic environments. For instance, when algorithms determine access to opportunities through job recruitment platforms or credit scoring systems, their design and implementation must be scrutinized for bias. Addressing such biases requires shifting the focus from the technical intricacies of software to the ethical imperatives of its usage. |
| | |
|
<
< | Total Freedom? |
>
> | Moreover, software-mediated spaces often blur traditional boundaries of accountability. For example, social media platforms facilitate interactions ranging from empowering activism to enabling harassment or misinformation. The question then becomes: Who ensures such platforms promote ethical behavior? The answer is not changing algorithms or moderating content but fostering a digital culture where empathy, respect, and accountability are prioritized. This involves rethinking the technical aspects of software and the broader social norms it engenders and perpetuates. |
| | |
|
<
< | The argument for maintaining the Internet’s total freedom, even in front of these dangers, lies in the belief that any form of regulation inherently undermines its nature. Proponents of this view argue that the power of the Internet comes from its ability to function as an unrestricted medium for everyone to use and enjoy. While governments may seek to avoid illegal activities, such interventions could open the doors to other forms of censorship. When authorities begin to regulate one form of content, it could become easier for them to justify the control of other types of content that may be controversial but are not necessarily illegal. |
>
> | In addition to these challenges, the darker dimensions of software-mediated interactions, such as human trafficking networks and child exploitation, which operate on hidden parts of the Internet, require attention. While much discourse focuses on the technical methods that allow such content to go unnoticed, it is important to address the human actors behind these systems. Individuals who design, host, and profit from these illicit networks exploit the very openness and neutrality of the internet to perpetuate harm. |
| | |
|
<
< | This domino effect argument has been frequently used in discussions around internet censorship, particularly in countries with authoritarian regimes. In places like China or Iran, governments have used the pretext of national security, social peace, or morality to justify censorship that restricts political dissent and information that contradicts official news outlets. Even in democratic nations, the push for regulation—whether to combat disinformation, cyberbullying, or extremist content—raises concerns about who gets to define what is harmful and what speech is permissible. If the internet’s role is to provide an open forum for all, we risk distorting its nature by regulating it and turning it into a tool for control rather than liberation. |
>
> | Ethical considerations must extend beyond technological solutions to include accountability for individuals and the systems that enable them. Society can better use these systems by understanding the human motivations and structures that facilitate the above issues. |
| | |
|
<
< | The Ethical Dilemma of Neutrality |
>
> | Net Neutrality and the Ethics of Access |
| | |
|
<
< | Despite these concerns, it is impossible to ignore the ethical dilemma created by complete neutrality. When we speak of internet freedom, it is often in the context of positive actions. However, complete freedom also includes the freedom to harm. The Internet does not differentiate between good and evil; it is only a vehicle for transmitting information, and thus, its neutrality becomes a double-edged sword. |
>
> | Net neutrality is a foundational principle of the internet that ensures all data is treated equally. This neutrality is crucial for fostering an environment where economic or political hierarchies do not determine access to information and opportunities. Yet, net neutrality also highlights ethical dilemmas intrinsic to software-mediated interactions. While equal access can empower individuals and communities, it also enables a rise of harmful content and activities, from cyberbullying to organized criminal networks. |
| | |
|
<
< | For example, the implications of platforms to host child pornography or human trafficking networks could have. These are not mere expressions of political views or manifestations of freedom of speech; they are human rights violations that inflict actual, tangible harm. When analyzing this, it feels troubling that such content should be allowed to exist on the Internet only because of its neutrality. However, considering that the Internet’s power lies in its ability to host anything, it must, by definition, include the capacity to host the most horrible content imaginable. |
>
> | Balancing the ideal of open access with the need to protect users from harm requires a nuanced ethical approach. It is insufficient to rely on certain fixes, such as filtering algorithms or governmental regulation, as these often raise additional concerns about censorship and surveillance. Instead, ethical considerations should focus on the relationships between users and the shared responsibilities of fostering a digital space that upholds human principles. |
| | |
|
<
< | The Role of Regulation |
>
> | Rethinking Connection in a Software-Mediated World |
| | |
|
<
< | Given the ethical concerns around allowing harmful content to increase online, it can be argued that regulation is necessary. For example, the United Nations has been discussing the aproval of a treaty to combat cybercrime for a long time. Also, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation has now imposed rules on using and sharing personal data. Similarly, the Digital Services Act seeks to hold platforms accountable for illegal content. Finally, it is important to note that the United States has enacted laws such as the Communications Decency Act, whereby Section 230 mandates responsibility to address illegal activity online. |
>
> | The paradox of software-mediated connectivity is that it both unites and divides. While the internet allows unprecedented global interaction, it can fragment society and polarize public discourse. This duality underscores the need to shift the ethical discussion from software mechanics to its impact on human relationships. |
| | |
|
<
< | However, these regulations can come at the cost of individual freedom. The aforementioned are examples of how, when authorities attempt to make the Internet safer, they risk transforming it into an overly regulated entity where free speech is compromised. Therefore, the power given to governments and organizations to regulate online content raises concerns about surveillance, privacy, and the erosion of liberties. |
>
> | One way to address this is by cultivating empathy, the ability to understand the experiences of others in online environments. Unlike face-to-face interactions, online communication lacks nonverbal cues, generating misunderstandings and even dehumanizing others. Designing software that promotes empathy across the internet could help mitigate these challenges. However, the ultimate responsibility lies with users to engage with one another thoughtfully and compassionately, recognizing that humans are on the other side of the screen. |
| | |
|
<
< | Conclusion |
>
> | Another important consideration is the role of digital literacy in fostering ethical behavior. As software increasingly becomes immersed in daily life, understanding its social and ethical implications is essential for responsible participation. This includes not only technical skills but also the ability to evaluate information sources and impacts critically. Therefore, society can better navigate the complexities of software-mediated relationships by prioritizing education and emphasizing ethical awareness in digital interactions. |
| | |
|
<
< | In conclusion, while often well-intentioned and aimed at protecting society from harm, Internet regulation contradicts the Internet’s nature as a neutral and free space. The Internet’s power lies in its capacity to host all content without discrimination, but this power also enables the worst forms of exploitation and abuse. To regulate the internet is to impose boundaries on what is otherwise boundless. |
>
> | Looking Forward to the Ethic of Interconnection |
| | |
|
<
< | While we might believe regulation can protect us from the Internet’s dangers without holding back its freedoms, the reality is more complicated. No matter how well-intentioned, any regulation opens the door to further censorship and control. As such, for the Internet to be “real” in the truest sense, it must remain free—even if that freedom comes with uncomfortable consequences. |
>
> | In a world where software mediates an increasing share of human interaction, the ethical question of how we treat one another in those spaces must precede technical concerns about what software is, whether it should be regulated, and how. This does not diminish the importance of understanding software’s mechanics but reframes the primary focus on its role in shaping relationships and social systems. |
| | |
|
<
< |
There are far too many words for too little learning in this draft. The reader knows nothing about technology or politics that she didn't know when she started out: the references to European and US legislation are essentially non-substantive, and the conclusion that "reality is more complicated" than a simple dichotomy between "freedom" and "censorship," shows the limitations of everything that goes before. |
>
> | Ultimately, the internet—and the software that underpins it—should be viewed as a reflection of collective human values. Its design and use must prioritize equity, empathy, and accountability, ensuring that the connections it facilitates are efficient but also fair and humane. This requires a collaborative effort among developers, policymakers, educators, and, obviously, users to create a digital culture that upholds these principles. |
| | |
|
<
< | "The Internet" doesn't have "a nature" any more than "the human nervous system" has a nature. Trying to prescribe human society as a deduction from the hypothetical "human nature" is a long-indulged fixation of 'Western' thought. (I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion of my late friend David Graeber and his co-author David Wengrow in The Dawn of Everything that an important root of this "natural law" theorizing was the discovery by previously-ignorant Europeans after the 15th century of the enormous global diversity of human societies, including those of the western hemisphere that had no prolonged previous contact with European social forms. The current draft's technological essentialism (that "the Internet" is a thing with a "nature") could be usefully qualified by treating "the Internet" instead as the name of a social condition, that of constant multiform interconnection among people mediated by software, rather than reifying it. Once we are no longer seeking top find out what it is, we can approach in a less inflexible, dichotomized fashion what you rightly consider an "ethical" question: how should we treat one another under that condition of enhanced interconnection, given the importance of the substance "software," which we generally and pretty comprehensively do not understand?
|
>
> | We can better address the challenges and opportunities of a software-mediated world by shifting the ethical discussion from the technical to the relational. In doing so, we affirm the potential of the internet as a tool for fostering connectivity, mutual understanding, and respect, building a foundation for a more equitable and compassionate digital future. |
| |
|