表情符号的模糊伦理:我们该如何永远监管网络?

CSN: Ethics Pub Date : 2019-05-16 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.3389468
E. Kirley, M. McMahon
{"title":"表情符号的模糊伦理:我们该如何永远监管网络?","authors":"E. Kirley, M. McMahon","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3389468","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper builds on our earlier investigation in The Emoji Factor: Humanizing the Emerging Law of Digital Speech by exploring how the social media industry is responding to public demand to expand the emoji collection to reflect our individual differences. We consider the ethical fallout of those decisions by asking two research questions: 1) how are emoji changing to reflect human diversity; and 2) do the resulting designs breach laws or ethical norms with respect to privacy, human rights, or data security. Our methodology includes a comparative examination of research and new ‘personalized’ offerings by internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as the standards board of the Unicode Consortium, to more accurately reflect emoji users’ physical, racial, age-related, and gender-based uniqueness. Our thesis is that through their graphic simplicity and broad accessibility, emoji are well placed as ambassadors of inclusion but we are challenged by the privacy invasions created by their data use by third parties and by a lack of algorithmic fairness in design choices imposed by artificial intelligence. We focus on examples involving the acceptance by the Unicode Consortium of certain emoji that raise ethical questions about their political messaging and machine biases that could discriminate on the basis of personal beliefs, convictions, race, age, or gender. We conclude that internet technology is a political and moral force and, as beneficiaries of its convenience, we have a responsibility to use ethical regulation to “rethink a Web that is truly inclusive and open, a Web for good.” Where better to begin than with that comedic, widely accessible, masterpiece of non-verbal speech: the emoji.","PeriodicalId":416153,"journal":{"name":"CSN: Ethics","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Murky Ethics of Emoji: How Shall We Regulate a Web for Good?\",\"authors\":\"E. Kirley, M. McMahon\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3389468\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper builds on our earlier investigation in The Emoji Factor: Humanizing the Emerging Law of Digital Speech by exploring how the social media industry is responding to public demand to expand the emoji collection to reflect our individual differences. We consider the ethical fallout of those decisions by asking two research questions: 1) how are emoji changing to reflect human diversity; and 2) do the resulting designs breach laws or ethical norms with respect to privacy, human rights, or data security. Our methodology includes a comparative examination of research and new ‘personalized’ offerings by internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as the standards board of the Unicode Consortium, to more accurately reflect emoji users’ physical, racial, age-related, and gender-based uniqueness. Our thesis is that through their graphic simplicity and broad accessibility, emoji are well placed as ambassadors of inclusion but we are challenged by the privacy invasions created by their data use by third parties and by a lack of algorithmic fairness in design choices imposed by artificial intelligence. We focus on examples involving the acceptance by the Unicode Consortium of certain emoji that raise ethical questions about their political messaging and machine biases that could discriminate on the basis of personal beliefs, convictions, race, age, or gender. We conclude that internet technology is a political and moral force and, as beneficiaries of its convenience, we have a responsibility to use ethical regulation to “rethink a Web that is truly inclusive and open, a Web for good.” Where better to begin than with that comedic, widely accessible, masterpiece of non-verbal speech: the emoji.\",\"PeriodicalId\":416153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CSN: Ethics\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CSN: Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3389468\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CSN: Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3389468","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以我们之前的研究《表情符号因素:数字化话语的新兴规律的人性化》为基础,探讨了社交媒体行业如何回应公众扩大表情符号集合的需求,以反映我们的个体差异。我们通过提出两个研究问题来考虑这些决定的伦理后果:1)表情符号如何变化以反映人类的多样性;2)由此产生的设计是否违反了隐私、人权或数据安全方面的法律或道德规范。我们的方法包括对Facebook和Twitter等互联网公司的研究和新的“个性化”产品进行比较检查,以及统一码联盟的标准委员会,以更准确地反映表情符号用户的身体、种族、年龄和性别独特性。我们的论点是,通过其图形的简单性和广泛的可访问性,表情符号很好地成为包容的大使,但我们受到第三方使用它们的数据所造成的隐私侵犯以及人工智能在设计选择中缺乏算法公平性的挑战。我们关注的例子涉及统一码联盟接受某些表情符号,这些表情符号引发了关于其政治信息和机器偏见的道德问题,这些偏见可能基于个人信仰、信念、种族、年龄或性别进行歧视。我们的结论是,互联网技术是一种政治和道德力量,作为其便利性的受益者,我们有责任利用道德规范“重新思考一个真正包容和开放的网络,一个美好的网络”。还有什么比这个喜剧的、广泛使用的、非语言语言的杰作——表情符号更好的开始了呢?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Murky Ethics of Emoji: How Shall We Regulate a Web for Good?
This paper builds on our earlier investigation in The Emoji Factor: Humanizing the Emerging Law of Digital Speech by exploring how the social media industry is responding to public demand to expand the emoji collection to reflect our individual differences. We consider the ethical fallout of those decisions by asking two research questions: 1) how are emoji changing to reflect human diversity; and 2) do the resulting designs breach laws or ethical norms with respect to privacy, human rights, or data security. Our methodology includes a comparative examination of research and new ‘personalized’ offerings by internet companies such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as the standards board of the Unicode Consortium, to more accurately reflect emoji users’ physical, racial, age-related, and gender-based uniqueness. Our thesis is that through their graphic simplicity and broad accessibility, emoji are well placed as ambassadors of inclusion but we are challenged by the privacy invasions created by their data use by third parties and by a lack of algorithmic fairness in design choices imposed by artificial intelligence. We focus on examples involving the acceptance by the Unicode Consortium of certain emoji that raise ethical questions about their political messaging and machine biases that could discriminate on the basis of personal beliefs, convictions, race, age, or gender. We conclude that internet technology is a political and moral force and, as beneficiaries of its convenience, we have a responsibility to use ethical regulation to “rethink a Web that is truly inclusive and open, a Web for good.” Where better to begin than with that comedic, widely accessible, masterpiece of non-verbal speech: the emoji.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Life Cut Short: Death as Divine Punishment in Talmudic Stories The Murky Ethics of Emoji: How Shall We Regulate a Web for Good? Talmudic Ethics: Lessons from Rabbinic Stories About Elijah, the Prophet who Never Died Luther, the Papacy, and the Quest for the Absolute Religious Liberty, Immigration Sanctuary, and Unintended Consequences for Reproductive and LGBTQ Rights
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1