Hi All, I've been on the phone with reporters on and off today and am struggling a bit with the whole event. Mostly, the questions are about the "impacts" of various technologies, to which I respond that the technology with the most impact yesterday was a gun. But I just had a long back and forth with a reporter from the National Post who was saying "the guy had this website, why didn't anybody do anything?" I tried to explain the subtleties of goth subculture, darkness and all that to no avail. The old "most of the people on this website never do anything" argument wasn't washing either. My line was that the responsible people for doing something were the people close to the shooter, whether they be online or offline friends. The reporter then turned it back on me and asked whether that wasn't simply dismissing online communication as a serious context. Sooooo, I'm turning the question around to you: at what point do people have a responsibility to "intervene" in something they see online and if that point comes, what form should their reaction take? I write this noting that there was just a big report (I think I saw this in the paper a day or two ago) by the Canadian anti-defamation league about the proliferation of hate websites and governments being unable to regulate them. Best, --J -- Jonathan Sterne Department of Art History and Communication Studies McGill University http://sterneworks.org
On the CBC last night, in a documentary called "The Human Behaviour Experiments" and a subsequent townhall discussion, this same question was posed albeit indirectly. The film was about Abu Ghraib and references included both the Milgram obedience experiments and the Stanford Prison experiment. There was also a passing reference to the Genevese murder, with 38 people or so people hearing the screams and not dialing the police. It seems to me that the triggering conditions for reacting in the way that the reported wanted you to react are a confluence of at least two events: 1. The posts have to be anomalous in the context in which they are placed (more extreme, more incoherent, more specific) 2. The posts need to be viewed by someone who has a personal acquaintaince with the poster outside of cyberspace AND outside of the cyber context within which the posts are occurring. Absent that confluence, it seems reasonable to expect that posts will be taken as hyberboly or otherwise not to be taken seriously. JW On 9/14/06, Jonathan Sterne <jonathan.sterne@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Hi All,
I've been on the phone with reporters on and off today and am struggling a bit with the whole event. Mostly, the questions are about the "impacts" of various technologies, to which I respond that the technology with the most impact yesterday was a gun.
But I just had a long back and forth with a reporter from the National Post who was saying "the guy had this website, why didn't anybody do anything?" I tried to explain the subtleties of goth subculture, darkness and all that to no avail. The old "most of the people on this website never do anything" argument wasn't washing either. My line was that the responsible people for doing something were the people close to the shooter, whether they be online or offline friends. The reporter then turned it back on me and asked whether that wasn't simply dismissing online communication as a serious context.
Sooooo, I'm turning the question around to you: at what point do people have a responsibility to "intervene" in something they see online and if that point comes, what form should their reaction take?
I write this noting that there was just a big report (I think I saw this in the paper a day or two ago) by the Canadian anti-defamation league about the proliferation of hate websites and governments being unable to regulate them.
Best, --J
-- Jonathan Sterne Department of Art History and Communication Studies McGill University http://sterneworks.org
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- John Wunderlich For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. --H. L. Mencken
Sooooo, I'm turning the question around to you: at what point do people have a responsibility to "intervene" in something they see online and if that point comes, what form should their reaction take?
Nice question! This is a significant issue specifically in Internet Research Ethics, especially for those researching adolescent / young adult websites. Our very own Susannah Stern has written two insightful and helpful articles on this, based in part on her own experience with encountering a mention of suicidal thoughts on a young woman's website, and then discovering a few months later that the young woman had in fact killed herself. Stern, S. R. (2003). Encountering distressing information in online research: a consideration of legal and ethical responsibilities. new media and society, 5 (2), 249-266. Stern, S. R. (2004). Studying adolescents online: A consideration of ethical issues. In Elizabeth Buchanan (Ed.), Readings in virtual research ethics: Issues and controversies. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Information Science. 274-287. In the U.S., as I understand it, social workers and other professionals are required by law to report such communications if they seem genuine. Of course, there are important caveats to be made about the differences between online and offline - but are the differences (I'm asking: genuine question) so great that the moral responsibilities are any less / different? Offhand - if the threat seems more than play and show (goth culture and all that), then what can it hurt to inquire with the author? (Yes, the researcher risks exposing himself / herself and thereby corrupting / ruining his/her research data: but if human lives are potentially at stake, which trumps? Human life, it would seem.) Depending on the response - it _may_ be possible to contact local authorities (psychological-social services, law enforcement ...) Just "feeling with my feet" in the effort to start crossing this particular ethical river (as a Japanese proverb would suggest) - a discussion-starter intended to invite critical comments, further insights and suggestions for more extensive and helpful guidelines. thanks for asking, Jonathan! - c. Distinguished Research Professor Interdisciplinary Studies <http://www.drury.edu/gp21> Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html Information Ethics Fellow, 2006-07, Center for Information Policy Research, School of Information Studies, UW-Milwaukee Co-chair, CATaC conferences <www.catacconference.org> Vice-President, Association of Internet Researchers <www.aoir.org> Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes <http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php> Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23
Thanks Charles I think the question also falls in the more broad computer ethics and is not limited to just researchers. I wonder if some of you wonderful researchers out there would call yourselves computer ethics researchers? Are there any of you coming from this applied philosophy field. I should note in some of my volunteer work I am under a duty to report. If I am on-line tomorrow in second life I will try to join the research ethics group for a discussion. On 14-Sep-06, at 11:30 PM, Charles Ess wrote:
Sooooo, I'm turning the question around to you: at what point do people have a responsibility to "intervene" in something they see online and if that point comes, what form should their reaction take?
Nice question!
This is a significant issue specifically in Internet Research Ethics, especially for those researching adolescent / young adult websites. Our very own Susannah Stern has written two insightful and helpful articles on this, based in part on her own experience with encountering a mention of suicidal thoughts on a young woman's website, and then discovering a few months later that the young woman had in fact killed herself.
Peter Timusk, B.Math statistics (2002), B.A. legal studies (2006) Carleton University Fall 2006 Systems Science Graduate student, University of Ottawa. just trying to stay linear. Read by hundreds of lurkers every week.
Den 14. sep. 2006 kl. 23.00 skrev Jonathan Sterne:
I'm turning the question around to you: at what point do people have a responsibility to "intervene" in something they see online and if that point comes, what form should their reaction take?
Before one takes any action, one needs to know if it is truth or fiction, made by a real person or a pseudonym, a plan, a threat, or a joke, etc. If Bree (a.k.a. LonelyGirl15) was openly satanist in her YouTube videos, or her father punished her so hard it would be a crime, should we take action? The trouble with language is that it always can be used to tell a lie. I am not arguing that we as readers don't have responsibilities, but I agree with those who say that the people who know the author(s) personally are the ones that should care first. By the way, if you are researching this, you might look into the case of the black metal artist calling himself "Greven" ("The Count"). Varg Vikernes, as his real name is, was convicted in Norway about ten years ago for killing a former band member and burning several churches. He has now turned an extreme nationalist (you need to be an expert to understand what separates him from Nazism), and still has an international following, much of it is Web based. -- Anders Fagerjord, dr. art. Associate professor, Department of Media and Communcation, Unversity of Oslo P.O. Box 1093 Blindern N-0317 OSLO Norway http://www.media.uio.no http://fagerjord.no
I'm turning the question around to you: at what point do people have a responsibility to "intervene" in something they see online and if that point comes, what form should their reaction take?
wouldnt you say though that this is when actually checking on someone offline as well might help? r -- Radhika Gajjala Associate Professor and Graduate Coordinator School of Communication Studies 302 West Hall Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH 43402 http://personal.bgsu.edu/~radhik/index2.html For queries about BGSU's School of Communication Studies Grad program, email comsgrad@bgsu.edu For info on the Theory Research cluster at SCS - see http://scs.bgsu.edu/Research/ResearchClusters/theory.php
participants (6)
-
Anders Fagerjord -
Charles Ess -
John Wunderlich -
Jonathan Sterne -
Peter Timusk -
radhika gajjala