I believe it is obvious that there is undesirable content on the internet. Examples that most people can agree on are pedophilia and sexual violence. However, there are different responses from some groups in society in regards to less definitive topics. These include pornography, and hate speech. Other topics have strong opponents and strong defenders, as Simpson points out. Topics like same sex marriage, abortion, and information about sexuality are seen in different light by different people. Simpson further argues that in the Australian context, groups that push for government backed filtering are strong religious groups. He fears that behavior that Christian groups disapprove of would be filtered out when other groups see such action as censorship.

It is my opinion that any type of filtering would constitute censorship. Yet, I see the need for libraries in particular to have filtering software in use. In regards to government, I believe there are many valid concerns about the validity and objectivity of filtering. Still, I am inclined to err on the side of protection and allow a possibly overreaching filter to avoid content that is damaging to society.

I guess, in part this is because Simpson’s article did not speak much to me. Is it because I am a Christian? Maybe. The things he pointed out as possible collateral damage in the effort to filter harmful content are not things I am interested in defending. However, I do see the problem in one limited group having the power to filter whatever they deem wrong. Any deontological approach will have a much more dominant approach as the group “in power” will impose its values on a population that may or may not agree with the decisions. Yet, deontology would approve of upholding such values regardless of opposition. What I see on the other side of this is that humanists also hold a deontological approach where tolerance is among the highest values. I don’t think different frameworks would necessarily give different answers as much as they would offer a way to interpret what is the prioritized value.

A feminist could say we need to care about those that are different and need a way to express themselves online by not filtering iffy content. On the other hand a feminist could say we need to care for children and adolescents by limiting the availability of certain content in public computers.

So as an American, what do you think is the higher value? Liberty, or protection?

I am on this side of Google: the pretty white page with a sometimes amusing logo and the promising rectangle that can answer my every question. Sort of.

If Google claims to follow the motto “Don’t be evil”, I have no reason to disbelieve. After all, how could I trust it to offer me endless knowledge if I thought it was evil? I am still not convinced, after reading Halavais, Blanke, and Vaidhyanathan, that Google or its employees have actively broken their own rule.

The issue is that with great power comes great responsibility (thanks Uncle Ben). Google, as the provider of answers for my and almost everyone else’s answers, has to make decisions that fall in a great plain of gray. And when Google chooses to allow hate speech to be among the top three results for a specific search, they are found to be doing evil in the eyes of many. But if they choose to suppress such content, then they are cataloged as evil in the eyes of those who champion free speech.

So, what is poor old Google to do? I think that their standard of avoiding evil is something good, something great. Would it be better for them to say “Don’t cause too much controversy”? I don’t think so. But, as consumers we should not put our trust on companies and their claims. It does not matter how good they claim to be. Same with politicians, but that’s another post.

As internet users and media consumers in general, we need to understand that mindless acceptance does not lead to good. By good, I mean the opposite of evil. We need to actively question the actions of anyone that claims to be doing good. I believe anyone that has transitioned successfully from puberty into adulthood has learned that nothing is what seems to be at face value. We, as internet users, need to see the reflection of this reality in the digital age. Amazon makes you happy, Google is not evil, Facebook is for connecting. Or not.

So let’s allow, and encourage companies to have great claims. Let’s hold them accountable, as much possible, to their promises. But let’s not forget that we need to make an individual assessment in order to determine if a page is being evil or not.

Considering their background, it is understandable that Ess’ and Lessig’s arguments come from different perspectives. This is true, even when they are talking about the same issue, namely, copyright in the digital age.

Lessig, as a lawyer, analyzes the ethical implications of a set of laws that have seeped from intended protection in the professional world into severely punishing amateur everyday use. His response is a much more tangible, specific approach to what to do next.

Ess, as an ethicist, looks at the reality of digital sharing and copying, from a much more philosophical standpoint. Of course, any practical proposal, whether from Ess, Lessig or anyone else, should have a strong and clear theoretical support.

Both Ess and Lessig give alternatives that encourage more sharing and less controlling than our (American/Western) current copyright system.

Ess, highlights the importance of social contribution to a shared work as part of the emphasis of community well-being as means to individual well-being. This echoes the principles of Confucian thought. In his description of FLOSS, these principles lead to free availability of resources that one can edit, hopefully for improvement.

Lessig, on the other hand, does not defend the abolition of copyright, but advances that there is a strong need for reform. This reform is not intended to shift weight from individual gain to social gain but to defend individual interests both for publishers and consumer, which are usually two sides of the same person, I may add. He presents steps for a balance that conserves individual rights to protect content and to use content fairly.

The documentary Copyright Criminals draws a connection between culture and repetition of texts. In fact, the documentary advances that culture is continually created by changing old things, not making new things. They offer evidence such as the long list of Disney movies that are based on stories that are not owned by one person but are part of what the common public considers common culture.

They use this argument to defend the practice of sampling, particularly in the hip-hop world, which is basically using pieces of previous records by other artists in creating new songs.

The people that support sampling see it as a continuation of culture. They do not see the reason in copyrighting sound, when the same sound could be recorded by them and used in the same way. Furthermore, they argue that the steep fees required to be able to use samples of a record don’t go to the artist but to the recording labels. These labels are more interested in dollar signs than in the development of music as a social property.

Their approach is certainly based on Confucian ideals of social relations and on the progress of society as a pathway to personal growth.

Those on the opposite front argue that laws are set for protecting people and it is not right for anybody to take the work of another person and use it for their personal gain, whether that be money or fame. This is a deontological approach, exemplified by a judge ruling based on the Biblical command of “thou shalt not steal”.

One interesting point were the words by artist Clyde Stubblefield as he defended that he got no recognition, and advanced that acknowledgement was more valuable than money. To him, it is a somewhat utilitarian approach where the use of his work by someone else is a minimal cost to the benefit of musical cultural production.