shttp://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking+News/Singapore/Story/STIStory_334426.html

Summary:

The article centres on the Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) Lui Tuck Yew's admonition of netizens over the incident in which MP Seng Han Thong was set on fire by a Yio Chu Kang resident in january this year. He felt that some vicious comments were 'downright outrageous' and expressed disappointment that there was no rebutt from the online community.

He also felt that it is 'quite apparent the Internet is not an effective self-regulated regime as some may have touted it to be' and that 'it is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation'.

Ethical question:

Who is to be held responsible here? The commentors? The website moderator(who allowed the comments to be published)? The online community(who condoned the comments)?

Ethical problem:

How is it considered self-regulation if the government keeps track of and comment on netizens' opinions/ comments and urge them to 'do more to define acceptable online conduct' ? It seems more like an attempt to 'control' the content online to make sure it is 'appropriate.'

Article Link:
http://www.asiaone.com/Digital/Features/Story/A1Story20090728-157468.html

Summary of Case:

With the growing popularity of Twitter.com, a popular micro-blogging website which allows people to post short messages online or via SMS, a very different group of tweeters, known as 'phweeter' (phoney tweeter) has emerged.

A phweeter is a person who pretends to be someone else and gives 'fake' accounts of the latter's everyday life. In the case of Singapore, affected parties included Part-time Singapore model Celestina Tiew and even companies like Singapore Airlines.

It is stated under the terms of use on Twitter's website that 'parody impersonation accounts are allowed to exist' BUT it must be made 'obvious that the profile is fake, or it is subject to removal'. Twitter has also introduced a 'Verified account' feature recently to fend off phweeters.

Ethical question:

As opposed to actions taken against Phweeters who post fake/ negative information on a particular person/company they are impersonating, should those who post only post real accounts of/ information on the party concerned be tolerated? Is this not considered an infringement on rights of the party concerned as well?

Ethical problem:

This goes back to Twitter's terms of use that 'parody impersonation are allowed to exist' but it must be made 'obvious that the profile is fake'. This seems kind of vague and questionable to me. To what extent should such parodies be allowed? And exactly how 'obvious' is 'obvious'?

Also, would it then fall on Twitter to bear responsibility for 'irreversible' damage done (besides revealing the IP address of the perpetrator) if people's views gets affected and reputations become tarnished by undesirable accounts from phweeters?