Ethical Issues: Neutrality on the Internet

As the times go by, each year new inventions and new innovative technology is brought into our world. From new devices, new applications to new information and services. With all these becoming available we are becoming increasingly dependent on the internet. With globalization tearing down barriers and bring the world to one global village, many business in order to conform to the shift are now running as e-business, even this has opened up a whole lot of possibilities now people can be business owners from their own homes. So net neutrality is something that is worth the talk it is generating to day. Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic. The issues that net neutrality is seeking to address is the artificial scarcity that ISPs are trying to create, by using their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly those of competitors.

Net neutrality advocates for all information flowing on the internet to be treated fairly. Today with the way the internet has evolved, more people are streaming data-rich video and playing online games. This has also introduced the problem of congestion of the internet. So should ISPs take advantage of that and provide multi-tiered access to heavy users? With all the hype about net neutrality and the argument of both sides we usually often time skew from the fundamental issue. The Open Internet Coalition argues that “Too often, the discussion of why we need to protect the open Internet degenerates into a stale debate about regulation versus the free market. In fact, it’s impossible for innovation to continue apace without some basic rules of the road to protect that innovation. The open Internet was the principle leading the development of the Internet as the first open global communications network. And it helped drive the development of a host of Internet applications like Facebook, YouTube, and Skype. There would have been no motivation for the developers of these applications to have expended time, effort, and in some cases, their own financial security, in pursuit of their vision if they weren’t guaranteed their inventions would have been able to work over any Internet connection." 

On this topic I personally believe, that with the way the internet is now so much integrated into our everyday lives, its importance alone has made it some think akin to water. If Water is not regulated in the terms of how much we drink and who can drink better water, I think that the internet should be treated the same way. Yes we pay for the delivery of the service but not for tiers of service.

As for search neutrality, which is what some people are pushing for to be included in the new rules of net neutrality, the issue being addressed is the right to have all available information on a search term made available to you in order of relevance and not in order of who can afford it. Search Neutrality can be defined as the principle that search engines should be open and transparent about their editorial policies, or, better still, should have no editorial policies other than that their results are comprehensive, impartial, and based solely on relevance. Search engines are among the most innovative services in the global economy. They provide extraordinary efficiencies for advertisers and consumers by targeting messages to viewers who are most likely to want to receive them. For things to be easier and faster some pertinent information is now made available on the internet.

So many types of information are available on the web these days, and some of them can have life changing effects in the right hands. Internet sites have much riding on search engine results: as Nissenbaum & Introna memorably put it, “to exist [online] is to be indexed by a search engine.” While users can locate relevant information on the Net in other ways, search engines now constitute the dominant platform through which content producers and audiences can reach each other. Just as dominant search engines fear an unfairly tiered online world, they should be required to provide access to their archives and indices in a non-discriminatory manner. If dominant search engines want telecommunications and cable carriers to disclose their traffic management tactics, they should submit to regulation that bans stealth marketing and reliably verifies the absence of the practice. For fair competition to be available online it demands common commercial ethics to be applied for both dominant search engines and dominant ISPs.

I personally believe, that with the amount of pertinent information and businesses on the internet which we use in our everyday lives, information should not be hoarded or displaced, to promote increase in revenue.
Looking at the ethics associated with these issues, there are to point of views that can be looked into. The deontologist approach is an approach to ethics that judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule or rules. Deontologists look at rules and duties. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. For a deontologist ‘the end does not justify the means’, it is the original intent or motive that is the underlying factor under ethical scrutiny. Under this approach net neutrality and search neutrality is ethically right. The main motive behind it is to make things equal and accessible to all. The utilitarian position is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings. It is thus a form of consequential-ism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. Under this view neutrality on the internet is not ethically wrong, as long as the snowball effect of it brings about a positive change.
With all these facts laid out on the table, I personally think that the internet should be regulated by a body or committee. If it is regulated thus, internet usage and things available on the web will be available to everyone fairly.

Works cited

(n.d.). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from The Free Online Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Deontologist

Pasquale, F. (2008, July 15). Internet Nondiscrimination Principles for Competition Policy Online. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Judiciary House: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/Pasquale080715.pdf

Schonfeld, E. (2008, August 31). The Net Neutrality Debate All In One Page. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from TechCrunch: http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/31/the-net-neutrality-debate-all-on-one-page/

Search Neutrality. (2009, October 11). Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Search Neutality.org: http://www.searchneutrality.org/

Wikipedia. (2008, August 18). Network neutrality in Canada. Retrieved February 18, 2010, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality_in_Canada

Internet Governance: Internet Filtering

Internet filtering or Internet censorship is control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet. One difference is that national borders are more permeable online: residents of a country that bans certain information can find it on websites hosted outside the country. A government can try to prevent its citizens from viewing these even if it has no control over the websites themselves. In today's world getting information is just with the touch of a button. There is a lot of information on the internet, and it is now readily accessible to people. So how do we stop this information from getting into the wrong hands? Wrong hand for information maybe Pornography in the hands of an under-aged child, credit information in the hand of an internet crook or chance meeting of a gullible innocent and a predator online. Censorship and filtering of internet content is pertinent to some extent; some information have no business being circulated around on the internet. Examples are: Home made explosives and drugs, How to dispose of a body you killed, How to rob a bank, child pornography e.t.c. What rules are there in place to make sure that harmful information like these are not available to the general public and impressionable minds of kids?


With the world moving steadily toward a society of democracy, things like free speech and human rights are holding sway worldwide. Free speech or Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. When does free speech broach into Hate speech or the dissemination of harmful information? The internet is the one place where free speech is still almost reigning supreme. Information and things posted on the internet are not really censored and is really hard to censor. According to an article in Australia where the government is moving to have contents on sites filtered in the country. Does this have any infringement on freedom of speech? I say no. No, because like everything else nothing is absolutely perfect. With this technology of internet filtering, there is an acceptable use and unacceptable use of it. Countries like Mexico and the Caribbean nations are on the extreme lax side, in the sense that nothing is censored in those regions. Countries like Canada and the U.S could pick up with a little more censoring of the things allowed in there internet space. Countries like China and Korea which are referred to as “Black holes” are on the other extreme where freedom of speech is now being denied and the formation of the ‘Thought Police’ is very much real.

Yes internet filtering has some drawbacks that make it seem inadequate, because some of the contents the government is trying to filter out can still be gotten from servers outside the country and legitimate site could be hampered. The Australian filter was among a number of new measures aimed at strengthening online protection for families. It aims to block material such as child pornography, bestiality, rape and other sexual violence, along with detailed instructions about committing crimes or using illicit drugs. Such material is already banned from publication on Australian sites, but the government currently has no control over it being accessed on servers overseas. Critics say illegal material such as child pornography is often traded on peer-to-peer networks or chats, which would not be covered by the filter. The only issue with the implementation of the Australian filter in 2011 is the lack of transparency of the whole process, because it leaves skeptics with the doubt that legitimate businesses could be black listed and corrupt government officials could use this as an avenue to extort money from legal businesses. Seeing that the world of today is a cyber-world where almost everything is electronic, from e-mails to e-commerce. A company that is unable to tap into the vast market and opportunity of the internet in their own home country stands to lose a lot, so the secrecy of the Australian blacklist by the government might raise a couple of free speech issues.

In conclusion, to put to rest the concerns of the critics, the Australian government should make the internet filter blacklist draft an open and transparent process. They should also have well stated rules and guidelines that the people support in the determination of blacklist sites.



Works Cited

How get away with murder. (2004, June 13). Retrieved March 13, 2010, from Ask metafilter: http://ask.metafilter.com/7921/If-you-killed-somebody-how-would-you-dispose-of-the-body-without-getting-caught

Internet censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2008, August). Retrieved March 13, 2010, from Wikipedia.org: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship

SULLIVAN, R. (2009, December 15). Australia Plans Internet Filter Blocking 'Obscene' Content, Criminal Sites. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/15/australia-internet-filter_n_392393.html