Forum Moderators: LifeinAsia
Here on the internet, we webmasters have a substantial amount of power. Because of that power, we also carry a burden of responsibility.
My wife has been very sick for several years. In fact, four years ago she went into a coma for 5 days and came within seconds of dying. It's a major league miracle that she survived. Her recovery has been tough on her, both because of pain and because she has trouble leaving the house. In order to make things more tolerable for her, I gave her all of the tools she needed to become a webmaster along with some training and help.
Now she has become a very good webmaster. She has created a site about how she survived asthma and another about how she survived diabetes. These sites explain her experiences, give some advice from her heart and attempt to give people hope.
Recently, she got an email from someone who just stumbled across her site and was greatly moved. In fact, that person had been contemplating suicide, read her site, and decided to live. Another person was able to get help based upon my wife's advice. Many others have sent in emails explaining how their lives were changed or in a few cases even saved.
Wow. Now that's power. And along with that comes an incredible responsibility.
Now, on one of my web sites I give people advice on the web, the internet and other related topics. I give people insight on how to create sites which look good, produce results and perform their task.
I humbly submit that we webmasters have a high responsibility to the internet community.
- We need to communicate clearly
- We need to communicate accurately
- We must not tolerate unethical behaviors
- We must not promote scams and frauds
- We may make money, we must do it honestly
- We must respect other's opinions
- We must not flame, spam or engage in other unsocial behaviors
- If we find illegal activities occuring on the internet, we must take action
I'm sure you can think of other things, and that's what this thread is about.
Richard Lowe
WebmasterWorld is "News and discussion for the independent web professional" which includes the entire range of pros. Many of our members are in the a**lt industry or g**bling industry, some are professional email spammers, and all are welcome to particpate in "technical discussions." IMHO, moral discussions should be held elsewhere.
Integrity may be good for the soul, but it is also good business. Management gurus like Stephen Covey have built an industry around that concept. I have known sales professionals who were always successful - even when they changed companies, or products. They maintained their success because their customers trusted them, and they were trusted because they always told the truth. The salespeople who overpromise, fudge on specs or delivery times, etc., may get an order or two, but fail to develop that long-term trust.
Personally, I think you're doing those industries a disservice in implying that a discussion about ethics would necessarily exclude or alienate them. ;)
Which kinda hints at the problem of any set of ethical standards... Who draws the lines? What is considered unethical by one group may be perfectly acceptable in another. What is illegal in one country is legal in another. In a global communications medium, observing a universal code of ethics is virtually impossible.
Personally, I think you're doing those industries a disservice in implying that a discussion about ethics would necessarily exclude or alienate them.
Darn you mivox, I was expecting your comment and hoping nobody would post it! ;)
I was simply alluding to the fact that those industries may not be considered "politically correct" by the "moral majority" who may choose to question their ethics for just being a part of either industry. No implication was intended and I humbly apologize to anyone in either industry who might have taken offense!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion. :) :)
I was simply alluding to the fact that those industries may not be considered "politically correct" by the "moral majority" who may choose to question their ethics for just being a part of either industry.
Whether or not the majority considers these industries immoral is not, in my opinion, the question. These types of sites exist and people obviously enjoy them. We can choose which sites we view and which we don't. One of the greatest facts about the internet is it is not censored (as a whole, although individual ISPs and web hosts do place restrictions upon content they allow). It's a huge vast open forum with something for everyone, and those who don't want something can just click somewhere else.
I would be interested in hearing a discussion about responsibility from some of these industries. How does an a**lt site webmaster view his or her responsibility? I know if I ran one of those sites, I would feel it was part of my job to keep out youngsters, for example, and to prevent casual surfers from falling into the site without really understanding what was there. Do other webmasters feel the same?
Richard LOwe
In regards to ethics, I think its a good topic to discuss. When it comes to the Internet and Responsibility, I would classify it as more of Rules of Engagement rather than ethics. Within those rules are the governing guidelines for that particular industry. There are different rules for each industry and that is where the ethics area becomes gray.
Your ethics and mine may be totally different on the outside. But, deep within there is the Rule of Nature that comes into play. If you are doing something and it is not right, its going to come back to you, no matter what. Some don't believe that, but its true in my methods of rationalizing life.
The Internet is definitely not an area where ethics may prevail, and its all relevant to the industry. We as individuals do have a responsibility for our actions. When it comes to ethics, the definition varies widely depending on the issue at hand. There is usually an ethical standard in the beginning which slowly deteriorates over time. Or, the Rules of Engagement change and therefore previous ethics are no longer valid.
So, what do you do when it comes to the Internet and Responsibility. You do what you do best and follow the Rules of Engagement whatever they may be. You follow your own ethical guidelines knowing that what you are doing is right based on a set of rules that you've adopted, but, may not be the same rules others follow based on their ethical guidelines. I'm rambling now, but you get my point, I hope. ;)
I remember a discussion awhile back about scumware, and the same argument was put forth and acted on i.e "this is a technical issue, please discuss ethics in another thread".
I think we all know that scumware was (by and large) put to pasture through educational efforts that alerted unsuspecting surfers about the ramifications of downloading the stuff.
I've yet to see a technical solution to the problem that can win in the long run.
richlowe, I've enjoyed reading your threads over the past couple of days.
Thanks.
I define ethics very simply. It's how I want to be treated, how I treat you and how we treat each other as a group. Using this simple definition, ethics becomes very simple. I will not tolerate you, say, shoving a knife in my ribs. I will not shove a knife in your ribs, and I will not tolerate others knifing each other at work (for example).
Thus, I don't like receiving spam, so I don't send spam, and I write articles and such to help others with their battle against receiving spam.
I want to be able to read or view anything if I chose. I allow you to read or view anything that you chose, and the group can do the same.
It makes things very simple. If applied to individuals, groups, nations and even mankind as a whole, the system still works.
Country A does not really like artillery shells raining down on it's cities. It does not send shells onto other cities, and it works to prevent other nations from doing the same.
That's how I operate.
Richard Lowe
Enron, Arthur Andersen and Worldcom are perfect examples of what happens when you seperate a strong ethical sense of right and wrong from bean counting. The fact is, that in the real world, you can create all the regulations, rules and laws you want and they will all fail if everybody is corrupt. There are whole regions of the world where gross corruption is endemic -- the norm rather than the exception. That is not the world I want to build.
The Internet is no different. A good sense of right and wrong would not hurt the 'Net one little bit.
That's a good, simple way of looking at it. I place probably the highest degree of importance on honesty. If you strive to be honest in your dealings with others, a lot of other issues become non-issues. In general, as long as I am acting in a way that allows me to look at myself with respect in the mirror, I probably am not far off the mark.
There is a fallacy that any society or segment thereof can function without moral or ethical boundaries, this thought pattern seems to be especially prevalent (but shrinking) in the quirky world of "the web".
I don't really see that as being true at all. I think that in the online world as well as in any but perhaps a few of the most fringe segments of the rest of society -- any society -- people who believe that there should be no "moral or ethical boundaries" are, thankfully, few and far between.
Clearly there are many differing views as to where those boundaries should be placed, but just as surely almost everyone has their own boundaries; and expects others to have them as well.
Even the comment you relate, "this is a technical issue, please discuss ethics in another thread," isn't indicative of someone without ethical boundaries or of someone who doesn't believe they are necessary. It's simply an expression of a personal opinion about the proper time and place for a discussion of ethics.
I refrained from saying anything when a moderator said this was not a suitable venue to talk about 'ethics'. I agree.
Ethics and views of morality are VERY personal. I believe I am both ethical and moral. I promote MLM, p*rn* and A**t sites (plus other sites) - I promote my clients to the best of my ability. I turn down clients that I view as supporting views I don't agree with. I promote sites that I have no moral objection to.
This thread is (IMHO) utterly innappropriate to WebmasterWorld - and I hope it is removed!
[edited by: makemetop at 9:21 pm (utc) on Aug. 6, 2002]
Um, no, they're not. They're the distilled wisdom of thousands of years of human experience and while there are variations from culture to culture, some things are universal.
One widely accepted ethical standard is "do no harm" ... I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on how promoting MLM, p*rn etc. fits in with that one.
<<How dare anyone interfere with my views of right and wrong! I would not dare to interfere with someone else's.
This thread is utterly innappropriate to WebmasterWorld - and I hope it is removed!>>
You contradict yourself here.
Ethics - The rules or standards governing the conduct of a person or the members of a profession.
The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science; a particular system of principles and rules concerting duty, whether true or false; rules of practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as, political or social ethics; medical ethics; seo/sem ethics.
> We need to communicate clearly
> We need to communicate accurately
On the net, we are dealing with people from all over the world. Many will have your primary language as a secondary language. So much as a word some times can be missinterpreted.
It is difficult to always know how you are going to be viewed by others based on your writing. In that case, it takes extra patience when interacting with people to avoid mishaps.
> We must not promote scams and frauds
> We may make money, we must do it honestly
> We must not flame, spam or engage in other unsocial behaviors
> If we find illegal activities occuring on the internet, we must take action
These are the dicey ones that have tended (as you can read above) inflame some passions:
> We must not tolerate unethical behaviors
> We must respect other's opinions
It's often difficult to determine what is or isn't unethical behavior. Take for example discussions of search engine promotion:
- some se's cloak their sites and ip/agent deliver content. Yet on their webmaster guidlines page they say you shouldn't cloak.
- some se's have hired seo's to optimize their sites, yet turn around tell webmasters not to higher optimizers.
- some se's tell you not to run a spider against their site. They then run one against yours excessively data mining and never list your site.
- some se's hire partners to sell their services to webmasters, and then turn around and ban/penalize the site that the partner sold services too.
- some se's copy your content and display it from their site without prior permission.
- some se's put a branding or even banner advertisement on your content and call it "caching".
>Rules of Engagement rather than ethics
I have to agree with you pg1r, it is all shades of gray at the end of the day. There are very few absolutes in cyber space.
I do tend to seperate personal and business issues. I certainly wouldn't treat a good friend the way I deal with some competitors. Imagine being in a tight business negotiation and settled because you didn't want to cause the guy any personal finacial harm? You'd be out of business in a hurry.
