Ethics and Expectations

The readings for this week were very helpful as resources for guiding our own ethnographic endeavors in virtual worlds and landscapes.

The first two articles - the chapter from Boellstorff called, "Research Design and Preparation," and the Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR) Ethics Working Committee's recommendations in their paper, "Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research" - were really wonderful introductions to doing research work online. Boellstorff, coming from his anthropological background, framed the question on online research in terms of the tradition of ethnography. He first discusses the uniqueness of ethnography: flexibility, exploration, focusing research narrowly and thinking broadly while basing everything in historical context. He goes on to ask what a research subject and field site looks like online. The community will become apparent as participant observation goes on - it cannot be delineated off the bat due to the nature of the internet. He then talks about "strategically situated (single-site) ethnographies" as the method by which Tom researched SL without physically being there. The AoIR's recommendations were really helpful for thinking about how to go about researching online and the new ethical dilemmas that arise from this new space. They follow the standards of rights set by the Declaration of Human Rights and other international legal doctrines as a way to conceptualize ethics in online spaces (this itself is interesting because in one of my classes, we have been critical of the Western-centrism of human rights, but more specifically the notion of individualism and rights). They do give helpful tips for thinking about some confounding tensions that researchers must deal with online such as human subjects, privacy, and personhood.

The article published by the Stanford Technology Law Review, "Social Media Privacy: A Dozen Myths and Facts" by Lothar Determann and the New York Times article, "As Data Overflows Online, Researchers Grapple With Ethics" by Vindu Goel interrogate the question of privacy online and the expectations users should have of rights and ethics. Determann argues that there are many concerns about the internet and the several actors involved with online usage that are not true or are confounded. He essentially argues, "It is not the fault of the technology, it is the fault of the people involved - i.e. mostly users and their friends." Maybe I just don't like the author's tone of voice, but it sounds patronizing and brushes away concerns that he wouldn't be addressing if they weren't loudly expressed and widely shared. He seems to be defending the operation of the internet as it is now, or at least arguing against criticism of the technology itself. Goel reports on the initiatives that large social media and online corporations are taking toward ethics. These corporations are responding to a problem that only became a problem because users were upset, which I believe is indicative of some sort of "wrong" being committed and warrants some attention and investigation.

The last two articles I read had to do with "Real Names" and anonymity. It is interesting because the zephora article argues that using an alternative name is a right, a freedom for users who may have different reasons for wanting to adopt a different identifier. The Huffington Post article quotes Randi Zuckerberg, who argues that forcing people to use their real names will reduce cyberbullying. I think that this is an interesting conundrum, and I am am not wholly convinced by either argument. The zephora article argues for the right to use a different name because it makes people feel more secure expressing themselves as who they are - in some cases, in order to evade harassment. Should we instead work to make the internet a more welcoming place? Would this require Big Brother type control? The Huffington Post article argues that real names makes people more accountable for their actions, but should we just reinforce that bullying is bad to children? Has this worked before? Is forcing people to disclose their real name a Big Brother type of control?