Reading 09: Net Neutrality

The rise of the world-wide-web has brought the world much closer together. Now, people across continents can communicate instantly. And, in this communication, is the opportunity to understand other cultures and, hopefully, bring the world to a new level of prosperity. However, online censorship fundamentally threatens this. It is well recognized that humans have a set of fundamental rights. Among these is the right to freedom of expression/ speech. But, some countries, generally those under authoritarian rule, do not recognize this. Not only do they express the real speech of their citizens, through the media and in-person, they restrict online communication.

I think, in most cases, it is not ethical for a government to suppress online speech. Countries are able to grow and prosper by facilitating open-discussion and finding optimal solutions through compromise. But, by restricting what can be said and seen on the internet, countries are purposely keeping their citizens ignorant. But, I do believe that there are certain cases in which it is ethical to filter online speech.

I do not believe that people should have the ability to directly incite violence. This rule applies to all forms of speech.

Cases:
Is it ethical for companies to remove dissenting opinions for governments?

No, this case is not ethical. People should have the ability to criticize their governments, as long as they are not endangering anyone. In fact, this criticism is one of the cornerstones of democracy. 


Is it ethical for companies to remove information broadcasted by terrorism organizations, or about terrorism organizations?

Yes, in this case, I think it is ethical to not allow terrorist organizations. This is because it directly falls under the speech stipulation I posed above. You don't have the right to incite violence and endanger others through your own speech. 

Is it ethical for companies to remove discriminatory, provocative, hateful content generated by its users?

In this case, it entirely depends on the context. It the questionable content is completely unwarranted, and is out-of-control, I think there is an argument to be made for removing it. That said, I do not believe that people have the right to not be offended on the internet.

Is it ethical for companies to remove information that does not promote or share their interests or political beliefs?

I do not think this is ethical unless the policy is explicitly stated by the company. There is a place for one-sided biased information on the internet. As it is the internet, people who don't believe or agree with the information don't need to visit that site.