Blurred Lines… Establishing and Maintaining a Code of Ethics in the Digital Space
Throughout the duration of this course, I have been able to examine the associations of digital technology throughout various real-life applications. From watching a viral Doctor on YouTube deliver news regarding the ongoing, worldwide pandemic, to analyzing and examining the impacts that online dating platforms have had on social-interaction patterns, Digital Society has encouraged me to delve deep into all the behind-the-scenes details of the production and distribution of digital content as well as their relations to the consequential outcomes that follow. The most impactful topic explored in this course for me personally has been the conversation around ethics in a digital world. Between copyright infringement to the dangers of catfishing, there is a lot more than meets the eye when there is a glass screen acting as a shield to everyone’s true identities.
To those of us who grew up amidst this technological revolution, having and using social media has been second nature. Especially at younger ages, the content we curated was more often a secondary thought in contrast to the driving force that it plays in our lives today. With the advancement of digital tech, we have shifted to digital content sharing, virtual-entertainment and most recently, online education, and all this with minimal regard to the moral implications that stem from the process. The challenge that came to me with Digital Society consisted of the in-depth analysis of what I take for granted every day, to think critically about the content I consume, why it was made, who benefits from it and how.
In my first analysis of well known, YouTube content creator, Doctor Mike, I was able to analyze specific factors that contributed to one’s success in the social media space, and in his case, how he established a second career from it. I came to learn that not only do his achievements rely on his credibility and charisma but depend heavily on an entire production team who are essential to the success of a single Youtube channel. The online curator culture on Youtube has faced a significant shift away from its initial introduction into the World Wide Web as a hub to upload cat videos and short skits filmed on webcams. From editors to publicists to camera and sound technicians, entire teams exist to manage the presence of these semi-public figures. Doctor Mike had the additional hurdle of navigating the ethical fields between medicine and media. As he continued to be a practising family medicine doctor whilst maintaining his presence on the internet, he was naturally held to a higher standard by both his practising professional colleagues and his audience regarding his acceptance of sponsorships or ad partners.
In an ideal world, all creators should be conscious of the products they endorse providing full transparency to their audiences on their involvement with companies, however, this is not always the notion that is in practice. Many “health-boosting supplements” have found success in the market thanks to social media partnerships with creators that have substantial followings and the consequential influence over them. With many of these companies offering sometimes up to six or seven-figure payouts to creators, the ethical code of medical professionals when accepting such endorsements must be considered more heavily, as the advice they publish under their brands is more heavily trusted by their audiences. The creator-audience relationship between YouTubers and their subscribers is by nature more personal than the relationship between large celebrities and their respective fan bases, and it is this sense of comradery that plays a strong persuading factor in the field of advertising promotions and success. Unfortunately, despite some advertising laws put into place which demand the transparency of ad-placements in sponsored content, there are still many ethical issues that come with accepting sponsorships from companies (especially those in the health-care-supplement market) that fail to disclose potential false-advertising or mislead medical advice given by these influencers.
Through completing the second digital society assignment which took a heavy focus on image copyright and accreditation, I was forced to delve deeper into the legal and ethical implications of using images found online. The ease of gathering information on the internet is often mistaken for an ill-directed sense of entitlement to use said image. We often attribute copyright issues and legal violations to those who have strong presences on social media who monetize off of their content creation, rarely taking responsibility for the simple violations we may inadvertently commit on our personal accounts. In my case specifically, I have a background in visual arts (painting, sketching, you name it!), with much of my work previously derived off of images found off a haphazard Google search, often not questioning where the source of inspiration comes from. With a lazy-personal justification of “it’s different because I’m turning it into a painting or drawing” or “I’m not selling it, so it’s not a big deal,” I never gave these original pieces (or the artists that created them) a second thought.
Following the second assignment, where we were required to source every picture used in the blog post and confirm the open-source and creative commons nature of copyright per said pictures, I was able to explore sources such as UnSplash and Pixabay where all the uploaded pictures are actively intended for public use. I have taken these resources with me into my personal creations, taking special care to credit the original artist and source that inspired the derivative. Legal implications aside, the moral and ethical effects of signing your name on a piece that is not wholly a creation of your own merit does bring into question the credibility of the artist themselves.
Another way that digital innovations have changed the nature of human relationships is through dating apps. As the main topical focus of my second Digital Society Assignment, I examined the effects that dating apps such as Tinder, Bumble and Hinge had on the traditional means of meeting significant others. As with many aspects of the digital world, the ethical implications of these also have to do with the potential for the deception that is so vastly increased for two complete strangers on the internet. In the real (dating) world, most of us will try and impress potential suitors through the way we dress, the interests we take, or the topics of conversations we engage in, which can all be positively exaggerated to an extent. But when this intimate relationship-building stage is shifted into the digital space, where is the line drawn between “being your best self” and being someone else entirely?
Beyond the accidental over-exaggeration of our online profiles, there will be users whose intentions are inherently negative and aimed directly to deceive the other party. When this harmful sentiment meets online spaces like dating apps where the majority of patrons are expressing their vulnerability and trying to meet new people, it poses a real personal safety hazard, both in the information disclosed in these personal conversations, as well as when these digital relationships shift into real life and the two parties are planning to meet in person. This begs to question, which stakeholder holds the majority of responsibility when it comes to the personal safety of these users? Does it fall on the dating apps themselves to put in place verification systems? The school systems and parents to teach the basics of internet safety to teens who may use these apps? Or does the responsibility fall on the users themselves to vet and authenticate their partner?
When it comes to the subjective range of ethics, it is already difficult to define the boundaries of what is considered morally right and wrong when the decisions in question directly affect others in your life. Expanding these complications into the online space make the lines increasingly blurred when interacting with strangers, especially when one is able to hide behind a screen and an anonymous identity. When there is the psychological distance between the culprit and the victim, it is easier to justify the morally questionable action as there is not a direct tie between the consequence of said action and who is ultimately affected.
However, just because the receding end of the screen may not be directly tied to you or your actions in real life does not make any violations of victimless crimes. In many cases, the effects of online actions can be magnified through the limitless sharing of information that will permanently be embedded into the interface of the digital world and could last longer than any mistake made in real life. With this in mind, we should all aim to be our most genuine selves both in front of and away from the screens, while also maintaining a healthy level of scepticism when it comes being on the receiving end of these online interactions. Making ethical decisions often don’t have definitive black and white answers and involves a lot of navigating through a murky, undefined grey-area, but with the proper education, awareness and open communication, our society that is rapidly shifting into cyber-space moves to become better equipped to navigate this infinitely expanding field.
