For our readings this week, I gained a better idea of internet research, the moral frameworks built around it, and how an ethnography about virtual worlds should play out. In addition, the concept of privacy when attached to the internet was discussed, the topic I decided to focus in on with the 2 other readings.
In Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research, I was interested in the ideas of rules centered on guidelines instead of codes, so "that ethical research can remain flexible, be responsive to diverse contexts," which seems like an especially important issue in considering different areas of internet research, as vast of the virtual universe is. In handling these guidelines, the article focuses on the major tensions: human subjects, the issue of what's truly public/private, and the difference between data and the extension of self involved in the personalization of one's experiences in a virtual world. In devising a solution, the article posits a process approach, addressing and resolving ethical issues as they come up throughout the research process. This seems only necessary in the new world of the internet and the unsolved ethical questions the internet medium posits.
In Research Design and Preparation, a similar process approach was taken in defining the subject, scope, and thesis of a virtual world study, for similar reasons. Using a quote within the article, this is to "ensure that that his or her research questions are both coherently addressed and adapted to the cultural landscape that emerges." Partly , in my opinion, because the internet ethnographic world is one that is still new, and partly because these tenants should adhere to any good ethnographic study, emergence, relevance, and personal interest are 3 principle concerns the article focuses on for a complete study. Emergence of new ideas gives a lot of freedom to the ethnographer, while the idea of relevance keeps the study grounded in productive and worthwhile endeavors previously explored through other surveys and ethnographic endeavors. The article further addresses the practicality of picking an audience and group of questions in a dimension where it is hard to define audience and scope of study in a geographically and demographically unspecified domain. It concludes with mentioning connections to offline contexts, possibly to address "specific infrastructure issues or to political conditions relevant to our information..." However, whatever the context, it stresses that "relationships between physical world concerns and the virtual worlds we study may vary between worlds, as well as within the cultures within the worlds of questions," making sure to emphasize changing contexts of both real and virtual worlds, in addition to the efforts to make sure certain constructs within the particular virtual world of study do in fact mirror some aspect of real-world society.
Switching gears a bit, Determann's article on Social Media Privacy outlines many of the myths centered on privacy rights, the lack thereof, and the guidelines that dictate ethical corporate use of one's personal information in relation to data usage. This is a particular topic of interest for me, so I decided to focus on it for my readings. In relation to the Zuckerberg's issue of privacy needing to go away and Boyd's article about anonymity being a social necessity, I was fascinated by the apologetic nature for myth 4 in regards to social networks taking missteps as justification for data use infractions and security threats. I do in fact believe that this is the case related to privacy issues on the internet. While I am a fan of my right to privacy and whatnot, I am under the belief that if you are willing to put personal information on a social medium, you are giving the society of that social world the rights to view this information. After all, in regards to Facebook, you are using a certain company's creation to show the world a little more of yourself. While I am not saying that this is justification for corporations to misuse this concept, the internet world is a relatively public place that has yet to gain my full trust in terms of security and transmission of personal information.
For myself, I do not know where I stand on the use of pseudonyms on the internet. Boyd's justification for privacy as a result of felt marginalization is something I have never heard of before and her anecdote was something that was not entirely convincing. I do see her point in that one can face unfair judgment for their opinions posted on line and one has a right to avoid such judgment if wanted to online. But in the real world, it is hard to find an example where you can post your opinions, no matter how controversial, and avoid social consequence whether good or bad for your stated opinion. The world of the internet seems to be the only place you can say whatever you want and have the right to stand anonymously behind your statements. While it seems unpopular as an opinion, I do not see why you should be able to anonymously stand behind your posts. Trolls and cyberbullies seem a lot more convincing as reasons to avoid anonymity than hurt feelings by those willing to post their personal opinions on line is for anonymity. I understand unfair judgment and that is an understandable defense. I just do not see how real-world situations cover this justification; this may stem from my idea of the internet as a public space for individuals to connect, not a space for your personal thought bubble. After all, in real-world settings, when you voice your opinion, you are subject to judgment for better or worse. That just seems to be how the world works.
No comments:
Post a Comment