How Can the Truth Be Protected and Supported on the Internet - Essay Example

HOW CAN THE TRUTH BE PROTECTED AND/OR SUPPORTED ON THE INTERNET? By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date How can the truth be protected and/or supported on the Internet? Introduction There is an ongoing heated debate amongst philosophers concerning the nature of truth. Unfortunately, it is a chaos of unfathomable jargon, precise definitions, technical analysis, as well as subtle discrepancies wherein conflicting theories exterminate each other from each side (Cauthen, 2001, p.49). While they are remarkable examples of logical skill, intellectual agility as well as mental acumen, the results of such sophisticated exercises concerning the theory of truth is most sufficient and have almost no practical value. The theory is not beneficial to the routines of everyday way of life or in deciding about eventual matters of religion and morality; thus, they are somewhat useless and cannot be used to generate wisdom in the penultimate realms of culture, social policy, politics, and economics. Truth as defined by MacArthur (2008, p.2) is that which is in accordance with the cognizance, character and will of God. In essence, truth is not a concept that is invalid, subjective, irrelevant or outdated, but rather God’s self-expression. Truth is crucial for the successful e-services development, which ranges from e-commerce to e-delivery of Public Services. Given that trust stem from truth, Dutton and Shepherd (2003, p.9) posit that trust is closely associated with high level of confidence or certainty in the security as well as reliability of the Internet. Therefore, truthful information enhances trust, but the information may generate, instead of reducing uncertainty. By applying the philosophical ideas in ethics with explanatory reference to hypothetical scenarios and practical situations, the essay seeks to discuss how the truth can be protected and/or supported on the Internet. Discussion As mentioned my Miller and Bartlett (2012, p.36), the internet is currently the main information source, but the amount of material accessible in the Internet may be both asphyxiating and liberating. Even though there are more electronics books, niche know-how, truthful journalism as well as reliable facts at Internet users’ fingertips, the internet is plagues with errors, half-truths, deception, propaganda and unreliable information. Therefore, knowing how to distinguish between truth and lies on internet is very important, but also difficult. In the present digital age, the speed at which information memes are spreading is virally epidemic, and therefore, reputation may be ruined abruptly. In the past, information was moving sluggishly and with great friction, whereby powerful organisations and individuals controlled the release as well as dissemination of information. However, the advent of instant communications, social networks as well as World Wide Web has wrecked that firm foundation. The current global economy is competitive and powered by internet; therefore, all decisions made by the customers may be impacted by shared as well as quickly disseminated information. In the current digital age, untruthful information is disseminating swiftly and its consequence is fatal. For instance, a negative review on the Internet may consequently destroy a company’s competitive sales prospects. Hayes-Roth (2011, p.2) argues that lack of Internet integrity is currently threatening the mortal risk; therefore, protecting the truth is a policy needed for survival. Almost one billion people are currently integrating socially and carrying out commerce on the internet, and in this ‘infosphere’, decisions, judgments and perceptions are shaped powerfully by events of the information. The Value of Truth Some of internet-based products such as social media were created from the need for private connection; however, the outcome turned out to be a multifaceted account of mediated participation unmatched by the former methods of communication.  Such sophisticated corporate in addition to individual media practices and representations need cautious contemplation. As pointed out by Beasley and Haney (2013, p.2), social media is evolving rapidly and dissemination of untruth information has become prevalent; thus, resulting in ethical challenges. Evidently, anonymity in the internet is encouraging users to act in bad faith, and this consequently raises concerns concerning the credibility of Internet. Puzis (2009) posits that anonymity is making it simple for Internet users to lie; thus, making it hard for other users to judge the reliability of the information source, and preventing them from offering practical punishments to individuals undermining ethical practices. In view of this, the internet offers a poor means for producing as well as disseminating knowledge. Hoax blogs, Twitter pranks as well as Wikipedia vandalism are currently common features in the Internet. Latest incidences of a person tweeting untruthful rumour of hurricane Sandy causing flooding in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), a company deleting fault-finding information from Wikipedia as well as a fake blog posting information concerning the uprising in Syria all intensified concerns about protecting truth on the internet. Such abuses of Internet proves that the early epitomes of an open and free Internet were naïve since the level of abuse is increasing creating need for accountability mechanisms so as to ensure the internet has epistemic value. A number of critics are advocating for civil as well as criminal penalties for Internet users who spread untruthful information. Others suggest naming as well as mortifying of people who use internet to support their lies or misinform the public. According to Frost-Arnold (2014, p.64), since scores of bloggers are not responsible to anyone, the epistemic value of blogging is less as compared to conventional journalism since the Internet lacks stronger accountability systems. Users use anonymity to protect their true identities, and frauds, vandals, imps, special interest groups as well as corporations inspired by anonymity protection can use Internet to spread untruths for entertaining, self-promotion, harm or political gain. Some of the victims of the spread of internet misinformation include Internet encyclopedias. Even though Wikipedia entries trustworthiness is far beyond that of other encyclopedias like the Encyclopedia Britannica, Frost-Arnold (2014, p.72) posits that it can still be vandalised considering that most of its entries can be edited by any person anonymously. While Wikipedians are able to anonymously edit Wikipedia pages, Facebook users and bloggers can as well take part devoid of offering precise information concerning their true identities; therefore, Internet users having fake identities are using this protection so as to spread half-truth information. The case study below offers an illustration of how people are using Internet to support half-truths rather than truths. Case Study A blog titled “A Gay Girl in Damascus” was started in 2011 by Amina Abdallah Arraf, and for four months the blogger posted information about her life claiming that she is a Syrian-American lesbian living in Syria’s capital city, Damascus at the time of Syrian uprising. The blog was read widely, especially in the Western countries with most reporters from these countries heralding her as the uprising hero. On 6th June 2011, Amina’s cousin posted on the blog alleging that armed men had kidnapped Amina. In consequence, a number of new outlets from the western countries reported the capture of Amina, which resulted in a campaign, intended to trace and free her. Besides that, a Facebook group having 14,000 followers demanded for her release, and an investigation to her disappearance was initiated by the American. Even though Amina Arraf had many supporters especially from the West, she did not exist. Actually, all blog posts were authored solely by a white American known as Tom MacMaster living in Edinburgh. Without a doubt, this internet imposture brought about an enormous epistemic damage considering that untruth claims were disseminated by the blog regarding a life of person who was non-existent (Lipinski, 2012, p.2`). These claims were believed by majority of the readers and with the help of the Western media who promoted Amina as a Syria uprising hero, the Internet was used to disseminate untruthful beliefs to a broader audience. Therefore, the hoax by MacMaster weakened the trust in the majority of legitimate advocates, therefore undermining their capability of using Internet to support true claims concerning the Arab Spring. Utilitarianism The ethical theory of Utilitarianism is based on the capability of predicting the outcome of an action. According to the utilitarians, the choice that benefits the majority of people is the one, which is ethically correct. Utilitarianism is considered beneficial since a utilitarian may contrast similar solutions that have been predicted and utilise a point system so as to decide the choice that can benefit many people. Utilitarians consider noble or altruistic lies that precisely are expected to benefit another person as morally acceptable. As argued by utilitarians, truth is merely another utility since truth can only be valued by people if they are beneficial to them. For those seeking truth hold the view that truth will result in an improved society. Without a doubt, ethics has turned out to be a major concern in the online society, particular for companies using internet to market themselves. Importantly, such companies are expected to carry out their activities ethically and appropriately, and not to use half-truths to outdo other competitors. Utilitarianism is motivated by some fundamental ideas; for instance, the consequence of people actions underlies their moral evaluation and the consequence must be assessed as well as compared in terms of the discontent or contentment they cause. Therefore, it is imperative for online users to install morals into everything they do on the Internet, and they must maintain a sense of wellbeing so as to offer trustworthy information. According to utilitarians, the truth should only be protected or supported on the internet, if only it will benefit many Internet Users. Ethical Egoism The theory of ethical egoism states that the right thing for a person to do is looking out for his/her own self-interest since he/she is morally needed just to make him/herself happy. Basically, ethical egoists believe that no one has a duty of helping others in need unless it benefits their own needs. Ethical egoism offers only general rules; therefore, although it befits a person to be truthful (so as to gain the trust of people), it fails to veto lying when actually it is beneficial to do so. The Internet contributes to both or either of such goals, and it needs self-preservation for someone to get that ability. Therefore having this ability changes from being an issue of utilitarianism in providing improved service, to an issue of ethical egoism not just for self-interest but also for survival. With regard to the abuse of information as evidenced in case study above, there is no palpable financial consequences if such an incidence is unprotected; therefore, the players in the corporate world would undoubtedly operate for their own wellbeing by trying to prevent any incident. Most companies’ external stakeholders such as insurers by ethical egoism would attempt to prevent misuse of information. Ethical egoism suggests that the reason why people should not lie is for the reason that if they lie, they are inclined to negatively impact their personal happiness. From ethical egoism point of view, that and that alone is the basis of telling the truth. In view of this, the truth should be protected on the Internet not for the benefit of other users, but for one’s own happiness. Kantianism Kantian ethics as mentioned by Hooker (2002, p.1) is anchored on Immanuel Kant teachings arguing that the motive concept is a crucial factor in determination of what is ethical. Precisely, Kant reasoned that an ethical action is that performed because of a sense of duty. On the view of Kant, it may be correctly argued that preserving a life of a person is a moral duty; therefore, there is a moral duty in preserving others life. Therefore, according to Kantians it’s a moral duty of a person to lie so as to protect a life. Therefore, the moral duty of telling the truth always is not outright. The theory proves why some companies fail to tell the truth while advertising on the Internet, because the whole picture seems precarious. According to Kantians, consistency is respected by reason, but reason possesses its own motive, distinct from the appetites’ needs, which Sofroniou (2009, p.32) says is a respect grounded in the moral laws consistency. There exists some moral dilemmas in the theory; for instance, by telling the truth one violates a moral law. In view of this, the subsistence of moral dilemmas presents an existential issue for Kant's argument that is the there is no reason of following the moral law if the system is not consistent. So as to act with transparency, Internet users must always be open concerning their actions. Regrettably, scores if Internet users are secretive concerning what they do with their information; thus, making it hard to discern their intention. Ways of Protecting and Supporting Truth on the Internet One way of promoting internet accountability and protecting the truth on the internet is by ending anonymity. This may involve substituting anonymous systems with other systems capable of prompting users to communicate while using their true identities. Even though this may be an important change to scores of internet users, numerous existing tools may be utilised. For instance, a number of internet wiki encyclopedias need editors capable of adopting true user identities such as Scholarpedia as well as Citizendium. The real-names policy used by Citizendium was inspired by ethical concerns bearing in mind that people are inclined to behave well when their behaviour is open to the public and their identities are recognized. As observed by Sanger (2008), good behaviour in the internet facilitates dissemination of truthful information. Another way of protecting truth is commenters in the blog are required to sign their comments, and where anonymous commenters are banned from posting comments. Even though such strategies can facilitate non-anonymous participation, Ariely (2013, p.35) posits that there is likelihood that someone can offer a false identity, especially if the verification mechanisms are non-existent. In order to prevent problem, internet-based products such as Twitter and Facebook has a number of verified accounts (commonly of influential figures such as celebrities) for which the user’s real-world identity has been confirmed. There is need for complete transparency in the Internet considering that virtual communication lacks the face to face communication. Therefore, businesses have to create trust early devoid of using brand or prior history for help. This should be in consideration of the fact that with no complete transparency, the business may be considered irresponsible and may result in doubt as well as questions with regard to the firm’s dependability. Therefore, entrepreneurs on the Internet must be truthful about all their actions, and this may be achieved by instituting a concise, clear privacy policy, which communicates effectively how the corporation as an Internet user makes use of the private information. As suggested by Stevens (2010, p.21), a possible solution in lessening the privacy policies’ shear length is by creating a summary of how a certain privacy policy is moving away from the baseline policy that has been established. Still, truth-value markings as mentioned by Hayes-Roth (2011, p.6) are capable of cutting both ways. Bad reviews concerning a companies or a person can become more harmful if the users trust them; therefore, TruthSeal marks may be utilised for amplifying the impact and credibility of truths on the internet. Whereas scores of companies are operating creatively between truth and lies, which are occupied mostly by public relations and advertising, their freedom of succeeding by remaining in that area will considerably decline if people continue using the Internet to support lies. Scrutinised and objective claims can be used to challenge falsified information, and this can facilitate Internet users to engage in activities of truth scouting; thus, creating a chance for people wishing to influence truth telling. By using Internet to support truthful information, it becomes easier to erode the lasting viability as well as value of person who are unable to compete on factual bases. While the world continues demanding information that is high-quality and truthful, Vallee (1999, p.119) posits that business opportunities materialises for those capable of curating or assessing information. While digital information are becoming progressively dominant, Burger (2014, p.7) points out that there is need for search engines to become more helpful to the users in finding truthful and valued information, or they will turn out to be plain relay stations for low-quality and untruthful information. Without a doubt, the truthful information new value potential is capable of reshaping information markets and fast-tracking new management practices. By posting truthful information, managers can consequently sustain business profits as well as reputations, democracy as well as free enterprise. Therefore, truth telling must be a key measured objective for every Internet user. While the volumes of information continue increasing exponential manner, new search as well as filter algorithms will evolve, where both truth and lies will be accessible to Internet Users. For this reason, businesses will require diverse approaches as well as methods so as serve such two different forms of taste, but the truth will be the most important taste. Companies like Apple, Amazon and Google often try to maintain their images of quality, honesty as well as superior service and understand the value of truth. Conclusion In conclusion, by applying the philosophical ideas in ethics with explanatory reference to hypothetical scenarios and practical situations, the essay has discussed how the truth can be protected and/or supported on the Internet. As mentioned in the essay, there is need to establish internet accountability mechanisms so as to facilitate the dissemination of truthful information. These mechanisms try to promote credibility by holding the true identities of the users accountable for the online behavior. Still, anonymity offers protection to truths disseminated individuals willing to contribute information that has epistemic value. Therefore, decreasing or reducing this protection by means of accountability mechanisms places the online communities’ diversity in danger, especially the diversity allowing online communities to weed out lies and support truth. Still, it has become ethically challenging to verify information from myriad Internet sources in real time, but as argued by utilitarians the information offered whether truthful or false is important as long as it benefits a large number of Internet users. Still, a number of Internet users, especially propagandists, manipulators and hoaxers are using Internet to support and protect their fraudulent messages as well as images that they have engineered. Unlike truth, falsehoods and rumors disseminate swiftly, and in most cases they are more clickable, convincing and compelling. References Ariely, D., 2013. likelihood that someone can offer a false identity. New York, NY : HarperCollins. Beasley, B. & Haney, M.R., 2013. Social Media and the Value of Truth. Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield. Burger, M., 2014. Search Engine Placement and Search Engine Marketing for Business-to Business Brands. London: epubli. Cauthen, K., 2001. The Ethics of Belief: A Bio-Historical Approach : Theory. Lima, OH: CSS Publishing. Dutton, W.H. & Shepherd, A., 2003. Trust in the Internet: The Social Dynamics of an Experience Technolog. Oxford: Research Report The University of Oxford for the Oxford Internet Institute. Frost-Arnold, K., 2014. Trustworthiness and Truth: The Epistemic Pitfalls of Internet Accountability. Episteme, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.63-81. Hayes-Roth, R., 2011. The Value of Truth Telling. Work Paper. Monterey, CA. Hooker, B., 2002. Kant’s Normative Ethics. Richmond Journal of Philosophy, vol. 1, pp.1-7. Lipinski, A.M., 2012. Truth in the Age Of Social Media. Nieman Reports, vol. 62, no. 2, pp.1-72. MacArthur, J.F., 2008. The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson Inc. Miller, C. & Bartlett, J., 2012. Digital fluency’: towards young people’s critical use of the internet. Journal of Information Literacy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp.35-55. Puzis, R., 2009. Collaborative attack on Internet users’ anonymity. Internet Research, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.60-77. Sanger, L., 2008. Citizendium: A New Vision for Online Knowledge Communities. [Online] Available at: http://larrysanger.org/2008/02/citizendium-a-new-vision-for-online-knowledge-communities/ [Accessed 13 October 2015]. Sofroniou, A., 2009. Moral Philosophy, the Ethical Approach Through the Ages. Morrisville, NC: Lulu.com. Stevens, N., 2010. Online Trust & Internet Entrepreneurs: A Kantian Approach. Wharton Research Scholars Journal, vol. 1, no. 1), pp.1-23. Vallee, D., 1999. Leading Your Business into the Future with the Internet. New Jersey: CRC Press. Read More

Therefore, knowing how to distinguish between truth and lies on internet is very important, but also difficult. In the present digital age, the speed at which information memes are spreading is virally epidemic, and therefore, reputation may be ruined abruptly. In the past, information was moving sluggishly and with great friction, whereby powerful organisations and individuals controlled the release as well as dissemination of information. However, the advent of instant communications, social networks as well as World Wide Web has wrecked that firm foundation.

The current global economy is competitive and powered by internet; therefore, all decisions made by the customers may be impacted by shared as well as quickly disseminated information. In the current digital age, untruthful information is disseminating swiftly and its consequence is fatal. For instance, a negative review on the Internet may consequently destroy a company’s competitive sales prospects. Hayes-Roth (2011, p.2) argues that lack of Internet integrity is currently threatening the mortal risk; therefore, protecting the truth is a policy needed for survival.

Almost one billion people are currently integrating socially and carrying out commerce on the internet, and in this ‘infosphere’, decisions, judgments and perceptions are shaped powerfully by events of the information. The Value of Truth Some of internet-based products such as social media were created from the need for private connection; however, the outcome turned out to be a multifaceted account of mediated participation unmatched by the former methods of communication.  Such sophisticated corporate in addition to individual media practices and representations need cautious contemplation.

As pointed out by Beasley and Haney (2013, p.2), social media is evolving rapidly and dissemination of untruth information has become prevalent; thus, resulting in ethical challenges. Evidently, anonymity in the internet is encouraging users to act in bad faith, and this consequently raises concerns concerning the credibility of Internet. Puzis (2009) posits that anonymity is making it simple for Internet users to lie; thus, making it hard for other users to judge the reliability of the information source, and preventing them from offering practical punishments to individuals undermining ethical practices.

In view of this, the internet offers a poor means for producing as well as disseminating knowledge. Hoax blogs, Twitter pranks as well as Wikipedia vandalism are currently common features in the Internet. Latest incidences of a person tweeting untruthful rumour of hurricane Sandy causing flooding in the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), a company deleting fault-finding information from Wikipedia as well as a fake blog posting information concerning the uprising in Syria all intensified concerns about protecting truth on the internet.

Such abuses of Internet proves that the early epitomes of an open and free Internet were naïve since the level of abuse is increasing creating need for accountability mechanisms so as to ensure the internet has epistemic value. A number of critics are advocating for civil as well as criminal penalties for Internet users who spread untruthful information. Others suggest naming as well as mortifying of people who use internet to support their lies or misinform the public. According to Frost-Arnold (2014, p.64), since scores of bloggers are not responsible to anyone, the epistemic value of blogging is less as compared to conventional journalism since the Internet lacks stronger accountability systems.

Users use anonymity to protect their true identities, and frauds, vandals, imps, special interest groups as well as corporations inspired by anonymity protection can use Internet to spread untruths for entertaining, self-promotion, harm or political gain. Some of the victims of the spread of internet misinformation include Internet encyclopedias. Even though Wikipedia entries trustworthiness is far beyond that of other encyclopedias like the Encyclopedia Britannica, Frost-Arnold (2014, p.

Read More