Reading 09
From the readings, it becomes very clear that there is some gray area when it comes to online censorship. When we look at Google’s inclination to build a censorship tool for the Chinese government, it almost reminds me of IBM helping the Nazi’s, using technology (online censorship in this case) to make the powerful more powerful. When, however, you look at Facebook’s attempts to stop terrorist accounts and the spread of mis-information or Cloudflare’s termination of daily stormer, the policing of content seems not only ethical but also necessary.
The difference between ethical and unethical censorship is a fine line. I think maybe that line is the motive behind the content that has been posted. The content that facebook is working to censor often times has malicious intent. Whether it be hate speech or “fake news,” the intention is some level of harm to others. Consumers don’t want to be subjected to this type of content so it makes both ethical and business sense from facebook’s perspective to control what people post to some extent.
On that note, I think it is important to consider the reason for censorship. In the case of the Chinese government’s request for censorship tools, the exclusive motive is to consolidate power and suppress anybody that questions leadership. The intention is not to squelch violence and hate but to silence people. I find it pretty difficult to believe that these tech companies, created to connect people and ideas, should ever be in the business of silencing people to help governments retain power.
With that in mind, I think the removal of the Daily Stormer website as well as Youtube and Reddit’s bon on posting gun-related content is a highly ethical decision. The motives behind both of these decisions is to reduce hate and violence. The Daily Stormer website removal seems like an obvious decision to me. A very open hate group, with public plans to harm a segment of the population should not be given an online platform to gain traction, membership, and notoriety. When we look back at the people who stood by and did nothing as Hitler gained power and followers it seems obvious that people should have squelched his resources in some capacity. We then see a very real parallel in today’s society, obviously they should be monitored.
The regulation of gun content is a little more controversial because people can make the argument that videos like that teach people about their weapons, subsequently making them better gun owners. I tend to follow the logic that videos like that can teach people how to operate and enhance weaponry that maybe they should not have in their possession. Regardless of the true outcome of this censorship, I think that the general motive of these tech companies is to reduce violence which is definitely moral.
I am generally concerned with online censorship because, as with most things, when it gets taken too far it can be disastrous. When you see China using censorship to sway political opinion and government restrictions in a dramatic way it is hard not to consider how this could expand worldwide. That being said, I think that as long as people are conscious about the motives behind online censorship, it can be done at a small scale in a healthy and constructive way.
