Citation: Thierer, Adam and John Palfrey. "Dialogue: the Future of Online Obscenity and Social Networks." 5 March 2009. Ars Technica. 1 April 2009. <http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/a-friendly-exchange-about-the-future-of-online-liability.ars/2>.

 

This source presents a discussion between Adam Thierer, Director of the Progress and Freedom Foundation's Center for Digital Media Freedom, and John Palfrey, Harvard law professor and Vice Dean, about the merits of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act and the role online service providers, including social networking websites, should play in protecting children from obscene content.  Thierer has concerns about revisions to CDA 230; he does not think social networks should have extensive liability concerning objectionable material on their sites, and he thinks CDA 230 has been beneficial overall.  However, Palfrey believes that ISPs and social networking websites should not be immune from tort lawsuits claiming harm from the carriers’ negligence.  Instead, accusations should be allowed to be brought to court, where the plaintiffs will have to prove that the ISPs were in fact negligent.  Palfrey believes that CDA 230 should be amended in such a way because it will encourage online service providers to make more of an effort to protect minors and develop more innovative ways of protection. He added, however, that most ISPs would not be found negligent by a court, and a multi-faceted approach must be taken to achieve the goal of protecting children on the Internet.  Palfrey also acknowledges the merits of CDA 230, and said he would not want the goals of it to be drastically impeded.

 

            The dialogue presented is a good analysis of the issues concerning child protection and CDA 230.  The dialogue format enhances the analysis because it allows Palfrey to address the questions raised by a critic of his opinion.  Palfrey’s approach to modifying CDA 230 strikes a balance between the competing goals of shielding minors from harmful content and promoting the development of ISPs.  However, Palfrey is the first to admit that a change in the law would likely not make too much of a difference in increasing liability, especially among the larger ISPs who can afford to make some effort to protect children.  What is perhaps the most important element of Palfrey’s argument is that he stated that there needs to be an increase in efficacy for children to become more protected online.  Empowering people to protect children could achieve the same goal without having to navigate the complex legislative process.

This is a humorous article which examines the phenomenon of college students giving up Facebook for lent. Articles like this really show how social networking sites have become part of the zeitgeist. Instead of giving up fried food or soda, many students are opting to give up logging on to instant messenger and Facebook.com. A surprising twist is that the clerics interviewed for the article actually support this; they say that giving up something like Facebook not only constitutes a true sacrifice but also frees up one’s time for other things. However, certain students were worried that they would feel utterly cut off from their social networks and friends during this period, missing out on birthday reminders, events, wall posts, etc. The way that this article presents Facebook as, “the connective tissue of undergraduate life” shows how ubiquitous this social network is and how important it has become to many of its members, who often spend hours on the site each day or week. However, in giving Facebook up for lent, there is also the connotation that it is something unhealthy that one is addicted to. One student admitted that she felt better not being on Facebook and wasn’t stalking people as much (only in the online sense of course). This article illustrates how important Facebook has become to many college students and when they give it up, even for just 40 days, there is the sort of discomfort that goes along with abandoning what has become a part of your identity, social life, and daily routine.

 

This book is a sweeping look at the Internet and how it has changed the way that we view the world (a common cliché in Internet scholarship). Where I did find this book interesting though was in its discussion of privacy and the Internet.  Also the witty tone of the book (one chapter is entitled “Saddam, O.J., and the Unabomber” and is about the Internet and pop culture) makes it an easy book to get into. The later chapters (starting with Ch. 12) discuss the trade-off between technology/access and privacy. Many people, especially in the older generations who have not grown up with the Internet, still think of the Internet in terms of the “Big Brother” metaphor. There is definitely a trade-off and some of the “Big Brother”-ness of the Internet (and social networks where often very personal information is revealed) is often inevitable. Something this book does not directly discuss is how generational this discomfort is. Younger generations who have grown up with the Internet, instant messenger, and online social networks are far more comfortable with a lack of privacy than older generations.
            There is also another type of privacy that deals with the Internet: the privacy of being anonymous and creating an identity online. Chapter 13, “Nobody Knows You’re a Dog (or do they? Privacy issues and the Internet)" uses the image of the dog in front of the computer from the New Yorker cartoon to question how anonymity and privacy have changed. The author argues that maybe it used to be the case that “nobody knows you’re a dog” but now, they not only know you’re a dog, but they also know your favorite food and where you went walking yesterday. Applying the author’s point to social networks, it’s interesting that there is discomfort with a loss of privacy when in many cases, information is provided voluntarily. Of course, when it is appropriated for other uses, discomfort can ensue, but I think that (in many cases at least) with so much of one’s identity based on the Internet, it creates a double edged sword: you have to divulge information in order to create an online persona, but that also makes you vulnerable. I know that I am uncomfortable when Google puts up advertisements that correspond to my Gmail messages; and yet I still love my Gmail. In addition, Facebook.com has many privacy controls and options, but people were still livid when it added the “Live Feed” function. Of course, you could go to options and turn it off, but there erupted multiple groups on the site that were angry at this invasion of privacy. This book, especially the sections on privacy, were interesting in that they opened up more questions about how social networks interact with our lives both on and offline and how privacy or lack thereof can be a motivator for how identity is presented.

This essay focuses on people’s tendency to create alternate selves in cyberspace; the author calls them “virtual personae.” As she sees it, this act is reflective of the fact that the self is not unified (as Freud imagined it in the ego) but is actually fragmented and split (more of the Lacanian school). The author brings in psychoanalytic theory in order to present the lack of a unified self in a positive way. She posits that the internet (and social networks, online communities, chat rooms, Multi-User-Domains) is actually helpful in reconciling the many parts of the self and helping them develop. She argues that the internet age is not fragmenting the self, it has just concretized and illustrated this trend which was already happening. What she calls “the multiplicity and flexibility” of self is actually a liberating thing with the potential to help the self function healthily in a variety of circumstances. Sometimes these online personas can even help a person work through repressed parts of themselves. The author is careful not to be advocating a sort of multiple personality syndrome; she emphasizes that in order for the multiplicity to be productive, the individual must be very self-reflective and aware.
            I found this article to be a refreshing change from some of the more cynical pieces I had read about identity and the internet. It’s encouraging to think that the fragmentation that people talk about in terms of online identity formation and multiple forms/representations of self could actually be a way to come to a greater realization of self. Rather than fragmented, it is optimistically “adaptive” and “flexible” (647). Of course this is not the case for all internet users who create virtual personae; some people could hide behind these identities rather than learn from them. In that way, the argument is a little bit idealist. Thinking about the author’s argument in terms of contemporary social networks online, there is definitely the possibility for defining oneself in a certain way on one’s profile and exploring other parts of the self in that process, but I think that especially with adolescents (much of the Facebook and MySpace demographic), they are often not ready to reconcile the multiplicity of selves and simply use the networks to project a certain image. It might take more time for them to self-consciously ask themselves why they are trying to create a certain virtual personae, and maybe then they will reach the potential that this article discusses.