Today’s Internet Ethics
As technology started to develop in the 1990s, new ways of communication have been invented for the convenience of people. In the past 20 years, the internet has been the transformational medium for people to communicate instantaneously and inexpensively through networks. This way of communication cannot only be utilized for common daily use, but the companies also hold on to such a new way of marketing to promote themselves which allows more consumers to know about their products. Besides the convenience that online communication has brought to every aspect of modern life, more issues arose within the companies and their relationship with usual consumers. I will discuss internet ethics in a Marco way.
International
Firstly, I will be discussing ethical standards in terms of federal laws and corporate social responsibilities. As companies entering international markets, federal laws are all different in countries that could cause legal risks to the companies as they sell products to international consumers. The Internet was a perfect platform for people to do business “without any regulatory limitations”. However, certain products might be risky to sell in different countries according to their cultures and certain policies.
Taking the case of Yahoo in the late 1990s. As the laws in France stated that sales of Nazi merchandise are strictly prohibited. However, pages of Nazi-related paraphernalia were on the auction site. Under the French laws, Yahoo should remove Nazi-related products from all of the servers, which prevents all users around the world from buying these products. In the end, Yahoo pulled out all products that relate to “hatred and violence” from the website and said that they would create new policies that monitored the sites.
Through this case, we can observe the contradicting characteristics of a company operating in an international market. Due to the company’s originality in America, they naturally followed the First Amendment of Speech which they believed that everyone has the right to speak and act. Hence, Yahoo believed that people all have the freedom to sell or purchase any products through any platforms and the Internet should not be controlled or managed by a dominant system.
Their actions will cause a dramatic effect on French consumers as the consumers would feel violated by Yahoo and they would refuse to use this online platform. Losing consumer trust would consequently result in a decrease in their total sales, and as the information circulates around the world through online platforms, it would affect their sales in other countries too as the overall reputation of the company is decreased.
Hence, I agree with the author’s opinion that thinking from the perspective of business ethics, it was the right decision that Yahoo removed those products. Since removing these items will not drastically influence the company’s sales, but they could create a positive effect around the world in which more consumers are attracted. Also, it is easier for the company to follow restrictions rather than creating universal policies for consumers around the world. Lastly, simply taking the perspectives of human ethics, it was responsible to take out violence-related products.
Freedom?
Another similar example would be Google as they encountered the same problem from entering to exiting the Chinese market. They implement their corporate responsibility policy into a new environmental context which means the company’s conceptual and ethical framework will face new social challenges. Google doesn’t know how to convert its ethical standards or how to work with the Chinese government to maintain social control through complex filtering.
This led Google to fall into the paradox of corporate social responsibility. Indeed, Google’s information transparency and information availability on the consumer side have benefited the users, but Google lacked information censoring and grading policies at the time. The conflict was obvious for Google.
As we can conclude from these examples, the Internet is not unrestricted liberalization of speech. All freedom is under the framework of the law. The company should adhere to its own ethical standards and social responsibilities, but it should also be prepared for the cultural and moral, religious, and legal restrictions.
I strongly agree with what the author believed as he wrote: “(corporate) social responsibility begins where the law ends”. The companies should make sustainable decisions as they considered and weigh both positive and negative consequences of their actions when they are operating in a much complex environment.
Conclusion
Although the government’s intervention will inevitably prevent the pace of Internet companies, the government’s supervision of the Internet is feasible and effective. The government should implement a series of regulatory systems and let large companies take the lead. Also, the Internet is not another society today. When A crook spreads various false information on the street they will be stopped by people. Same as the Internet, a platform that spreads faster and has more information is needed a system to control well.
