Imagine that you can choose to live through surrogates by controlling them remotely via your brainwaves. Will you want to?

(Warning: spoilers ahead!) In the movie "Surrogates", the surrogate inventor's original intention is to empower physically-disabled people since he is one himself. Surrogate usage enables these people to live like a physically-capable person. Surrogates can go to work on foot (their physical performance is better than humans in the movie), drive cars, look good (depending on how much was paid), go clubbing, etc. Basically surrogate users become empowered to do many things that wouldn't be too possible/ convenient given their wheelchair-bound real selves.

In time, surrogates become commercialised, gain popularity and more people start using them for different reasons. It seems to have become compulsory for government employees to use surrogates for safety reasons (i.e. soldiers going to war using surrogates, then switching to new surrogates if the previous surrogates "died"). Bruce Willis acts as an FBI agent who uses a surrogate to work (he can choose to "park" his surrogate in the workplace to save on transport time, I suppose). His wife, who has not exactly recovered psychologically from the trauma of a car accident which scarred her face and claimed their son's live, uses her surrogate to hide from and avoid reality in my opinion.

I think this movie is very relevant to an aspect of Week 9's topic, namely "imagined technological futures: between empowerment and destruction". If our current technology really allows us to use surrogates so freely, many implications are involved. Most importantly, empowerment can be experienced by minority or marginalised groups in the society (i.e. physically-disabled, obese) due to the façade or anonymity granted to their real selves. We become less prone to injuries and accidents too since our surrogates will take the blow for us, while our real selves are situated comfortably and safely elsewhere.

However, personally I believe the same façade or anonymity mentioned earlier can be abused to cause destruction (i.e. cheat, bluff or even commit crimes). For example, a kid can pose as an adult and be given the freedom to do things that would otherwise be restricted; an ugly man can pose as a handsome man to date women etc. I also question whether the interactions between surrogates can ever compare to that between humans? In the movie, Willis prefers human interactions with his wife, whereas his wife prefers surrogate interactions. An interesting scene from the movie depicts a society literally divided into two parts - land with surrogates and land without surrogates, the latter utterly disgusted by the former.

I notice that the issues involved in surrogate usage are almost similar to those related to the advent of Internet - empowerment versus destruction, when people are given the freedom to hide behind the privacy of their true identities. Some ethical questions I can think of:

(i) Is it appropriate/ ethical to live a life through a surrogate, with the real self being neglected (i.e. almost always stationary)?

(ii) Is it ethical to interact with others through a surrogate, while the others are using their real selves?

(iii) Is it ethical to go to wars more readily due to the safety granted by surrogates?

Reference:
Krishnan, S. (2009, June 21). Measuring the effectiveness of online activism. The Hindu. Retrieved September 24, 2009, from Factiva.
(Article can be found at bottom of the post)

Summary:
Iranians use social networking sites to challenge the validity of elections, since traditional media is restricted by the government. This online activism is effective because it serves to increase awareness of the issue of concern (content is freely accessible), provides frequent updates, unites people on a global scale and is transparent (which deters those in powers such as the states and corporations from intervening). However, online activism is ineffective when it becomes "feel-good online activism" that has no political or social impact, and when a message is spread wafer-thin and loses significance.

Problem:
The article seems to paint a too beautiful picture of online activism. Due to the greater freedom the new media platform entails (as compared to the numerous controls and constraints faced in the offline world), netizens are empowered to connect, cooperate and push for agendas of their concerns. However, what if online activism actually leads to harmful effects such as invasion of privacy and over-reactions (i.e. offline violence)?

Ethical questions:
Freedom seems to be an inherent attribute of online activism (i.e. overcoming authoritarian control, harnessing crowd wisdom), but is freedom necessarily the best approach to address an issue of concern?
Does online activism render control (i.e. law enforcement, government, policies) redundant, since it constitutes a collective intelligence effort which is capable of self-organization?


Article:
Measuring the effectiveness of online activism

CHENNAI: Sit-ins and police arrests. Placards hoisted high and slogans rippling through the crowds.
Pamphlets distributed at the dead of night. It was called activism and is still called that - just that the
cat and mouse game with the Big Brother has a binary code underlying it.

Social activism in the world of Web 2.0 follows most of the rules of the real world. But the nature of the
medium does have an impact on the message, and the jury is still out on how effective activism is
online.

After the Iran elections, social networking sites are being used extensively by supporters of Mir Hossein
Mousavi, who has challenged the validity of the elections. As the Iranian government has placed
restrictions on the traditional media, the supporters have sought refuge in the electronic world.
If you search for #IranElection, which is the tag on Twitter, a messaging service, for any update related
to the Iran elections, there are minute-by-minute posts by users around the globe. The effects of this
decentralised campaign are manifold.

"This raises the awareness of the issues among the people who may not have been exposed to these
issues because of the space constraints of traditional media," says Sunil Abraham, director-policy,
Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. "It encourages activists on the ground in Iran because it
clearly demonstrates global solidarity." The increased transparency also has a pre-emptive effect by
making it more difficult for states and corporations to engage in repressive activities without attracting
international condemnation.

But there are forms of social activism online, which are not looked upon favourably.

Campaigns urging you to 'Click on this link and eradicate world hunger' lead to an oxymoronic state of
sedentary activism or 'slacktivism.' Evgeny Morozov, a fellow at the Open Society Institute at New
York, has coined this term to describe "feel-good online activism" that has no political or social impact.
On the one hand, it will be easy to dismiss the click-to-participate campaigns as being useless. But they
could attract people who would have normally not bothered with the issue. Mr. Morozov concludes that
the only way to resolve the debate is by surveying campaigns to analyse impact.

"As far as I know, there are no such studies. But there is anecdotal evidence that clicks on a Web 2.0
system can lead to deeper engagement with social campaigns," says Mr. Abraham. He cites the
example of Michael Geist of the University of Ottawa, who was able to get some members of the Fair
Copyright for Canada Facebook group (with over 90,000 members) to raise questions during open
houses called by Canadian Members of Parliament. Thanks to this campaign, the government backed
down from legislating anti-consumer intellectual property laws, he says.

For the success of an online campaign, the power of the message also counts. Here, Mr. Abraham
refers to the Pink Chaddi campaign. "It did not directly respond to the arguments of the Ram Sene. It
used humour to mock the fundamentalists into irrelevance."

Though there is no clear path to an effective online campaign, the successes have demonstrated the
potential of the medium that promises to connect millions with a click. But just as a message can grow
stronger as it reaches more people, it can also be spread wafer-thin and lose significance.

After the Iran elections, social networking sites are used by supporters of Opposition candidate

Reference:

Democracy Project to Fill Gap in Online Politics (2000, June 8). PR Newswire. Retrieved 23 September, 2009, from Factiva.
(Article can be found at bottom of the post)


Summary:

The Democracy Project is a New York-based nonprofit organization comprising of Internet entrepreneurs and philanthropists to encourage the formation of citizen-driven public spaces online. The organization president, Reents, said that online political efforts had not worked well because they failed to meet users' expectations by containing offline campaign assumptions such as information control and story-spinning. Believing that "the Internet puts users in control of their experience", The Democracy Project is launching a new website that allows citizens to inform themselves, engage each other and political leaders in dialogue, and help set political agendas.


Response:

Since this nonprofit organization is based in US, I'm not surprised that they are very supportive of human rights, freedom and democracy. I interpret that The Democracy Project views the online platform (as compared to offline) as a better mechanism for cultivating a healthy political environment, where citizens have a say in matters of their concerns and dialogue is enabled between themselves and the politicians.

Such a view constitutes some problems, in my opinion.

Firstly, The Democracy Project seems to think that the online platform is best managed by virtues such as freedom and democracy. This is in line with the reading by Hamelink, where the author opines that the Cyberspace is best governed by universal moral standards - human rights. However, Internet governance by human rights has its problems. A particularly important issue I would like to highlight is the enforcement problem, especially when human rights can be very vague and abstract concepts. The reading states that annual reports from Amnesty International show that human rights are violated in every country, illustrating the "moral gap", which is a gap between "the moral knowledge human beings possess and their intention to act morally". Only a system of good enforcement of human rights will close the gap, but this system is still currently at a premature stage. Therefore, an ethical question I have for The Democracy Project is: If users are given absolute freedom in the way they interact online, without any control by the website, the website will definitely achieve its objective of creating a healthy political environment?

Secondly, The Democracy Project seems too optimistic of the technologically endowed freedom provided by the Internet as a way to politics. This is in line with the reading by Benkler, where the author sees the Internet as a tool "to much greater significance of nonmarket, individual, and cooperative peer-production efforts… these efforts provide a watchdog, a source of salient observations regarding matters of public concern, and a platform for discussing the alternatives open to polity". However, net democracy as a way to politics has its limitations. It could merely be an overly utopian view of its success. To hold a more radical view, could it develop to become a movement that mocks communistic politics? Or a movement to establish a power structure of the West over the East? Moreover, to juxtapose to China, its communistic politics is actually working quite well, as we can see its growth in the recent years. Therefore, an ethical question I can think of: Is net democracy the only way to an ideal political scene?



Democracy Project to Fill Gap in Online Politics

NEW YORK, June 8 /PRNewswire/ -- The Democracy Project issued a report highlighting the failure of
mainstream political efforts to seize the Internet opportunity, and announced that it is funding the
development of a citizen-owned Web site for political discourse. The New York-based nonprofit was
founded in 1999 by a group of Internet entrepreneurs and philanthropists to encourage the formation of
citizen-driven public spaces on the Internet.

With 35 million people going online for election information this year, the Democracy Project believes
that there is a unique opportunity to set a high standard for online political efforts. Their report argues,
however, that most political candidates, advocacy groups, and new commercial political portals -- sites
like Grassroots.com, Speakout.com and Voter.com -- are failing to meet the expectations of online
users.

"Right now it's politics-as-usual on the Internet," says Scott Reents, President of the Democracy
Project and co-author of the report. "It's not that political organizations have misexecuted, but rather
that the very assumptions they bring from the world of offline campaigns -- control the flow of
information, spin events and issues to your advantage, don't give your opponents too much attention --
are bound to lead to poor sites. These assumptions are antithetical to online users' expectations."

The report, "A Citizen-Centric Internet," can be downloaded at
http://www.democracyproject.org/about_us/index.html#whitepaper.

The Democracy Project is responding to this failure by developing and launching a new Web site. This
site, called Quorum.org, will let citizens inform themselves, engage each other and political leaders in
dialogue, and help set political agendas.

"The Internet puts users in control of their experience," says Michael Weiksner, Chairman of the
Democracy Project. "And because it does, political organizations need to start acting like service
providers to their online constituents. Quorum.org will be a case example for how this can be done."
The Democracy Project will launch the Quorum.org Web site this summer, in time for the increasing
election activity during the late summer and fall.

This is a very interesting topic. Thanks, Weiman! From the replies for this topic, I would say two general questions surfaced. Firstly, is STOMP liable for misinformation? Secondly, is it right for STOMP to publish photographs of people who are not aware, especially when those photographs caused negative effects for them?

To answer the first question, I would say "no" because I have checked STOMP's "Terms & Conditions" (www. stomp.com.sg/tnc.html). Users are automatically bound to the "Terms & Conditions", which include clauses such as "you must not use (STOMP) in such a way that will break the law or cause loss to anyone or violate anyone's rights… If you cause us to suffer any kind of claims, loss, damage or legal costs, you must indemnify us… We will not be responsible for any claims, loss, damage, and legal costs that you may suffer because of your use of STOMP".

If users do not agree to the "Terms & Conditions", they should not use STOMP. However, in my opinion, STOMP can practice Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) by performing content regulation. This is to reduce harm to innocent people to the minimum, i.e. inappropriate content for the minors. The least STOMP can do is to provide a feedback channel for users to report on inappropriate content, which STOMP has implemented - "If you do not like what you see on this site, you must inform us immediately…" (Duty-based morality?)

Supporters of freedom of speech may not be pleased with a system of content regulation, which is something STOMP is advocating for as well - "One of our main objectives for building STOMP is to encourage an exchange of views freely". (Rights-based morality?)

However, one can never remove enough inappropriate content. It is definitely not a long-term solution that effectively promotes healthy free speech. A better approach, though cliché, is to educate online users . The responsibility to learn and educate lies on every party, especially large corporations since they have more power at influencing. Ideally, a balance between free speech and content regulation should be achieved. (Utilitarianism?)

To answer the second question from the first paragraph, I would like to provide some opinions of a STOMP employee whom I chatted with before. He said that photographs taken in the public sphere are legal, unless taken within private property. He also said that STOMP even tried to protect the identities of "victims" in the photographs by editing them, i.e. technically covering their eyes with black boxes.

Well, what do you think of the employee's point of view? Below are some ethical questions I can think of:

1) Is it right to assume that identities/ privacy rights can be protected by doing some touch-ups to photographs?

2) To enjoy freedom of speech, should users first sacrifice some of their privacy rights (i.e. personal information) so that they will use STOMP in a responsible manner (i.e. not posting inappropriate content/ abide by copyright laws)?

3) Is it right for STOMP to use "Terms & Conditions" to protect itself, considering that it is a large corporation and more likely to attract parties who sue them for financial compensations?

Case It has been almost two months since Michael Jackson died. Some would call him "the King of Pop" and some would call him "Wacko Jacko". The latter term mostly derived due to his past child abuse cases, which he was never convicted and once acquitted. Problem The judgement of whether Michael Jackson was a good person is hard to reach a conclusion because we will always get both positive and negative accounts. Regardless of whether these accounts constitute misinformation, people (even those who have never met him) continue to talk about him because he was a celebrity (moreover one who had recently passed away). Given his recent death, negative comments (especially if they are misinformation) can really hurt those who love (i.e. family members) or adore (i.e. fans) him. However, positive comments can be misinformation too. Does his recent death make positive misinformation more acceptable? If he really did commit child abuse crimes (note: big assumption here), does that make positive misinformation towards him unjustified (especially to his victims)? Hence, the ethical problem here is the way people should go about talking about other people. Questions 1. We know the old saying, "don't speak ill of the dead". This is in conjunction with Kant's categorical imperative to respect other human beings. Adopting duty-based morality, should the negative comments about Michael Jackson (whether they constitute misinformation or not) be reduced or even stopped? 2. Adopting rights-based morality (specifically the right to free speech) should people be allowed to talk about whatever they want (including new media platform) in whatever way they want to? Should regulation by the authority be implemented? 3. Adopting similar duty-based morality to question one (specifically the virtue of not lying), should positive comments about Michael Jackson (whether they constitute misinformation or not) be increased or even exaggerated? 4. If Michael Jackson really did commit

4. If Michael Jackson really did commit child abuse crimes (note: big assumption here), due to the clash of duties (respect VS. not lying), should we talk about those crimes when we discuss about him in a public platform? Does just consequentialism come into play here?