Assessing social network sites as international platforms

INTERNET GOVERNMENTALITY Emine Ece Saçar M.A Program in Communication Studies Advisor: Lemi Baruh December, 2010

The twentieth century truly resembles a two-way mirror we can see the extensive progress made in some areas, but also the equally impressive stagnation -not to say lost ground -in others. Scientific and technological progress on the one hand, and regression into barbarism on the other, are oft-quoted examples of this ambivalence. As the end of the century approaches, therefore, its paradoxes and contradictions are cause for both fear and hope." 1 Communication tools such as the Internet are drastically changing established realities. The Internet fosters diversity, virtual freedom, points of reference, and the exchange of values that may guide daily behaviour. From this, the Internet is a tool of intellectual and moral solidarity. In the struggle for human dignity and the protection of human rights, use of the Internet can forge and draw upon a new international consciousness. This chapter will draw attention to the social and technological forces, which have converged, while suggesting the constructive potential of the Internet. It will be shown that a communications culture has a direct impact on human rights protection and promotion, in particular the effect information technology has on human rights practices.

2004

Summit meetings and world conferences have been convened on issues ranging from sustainable development to social development, and women and children. In December 2003, the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) was convened under the auspices of the United Nations. This meeting aimed to stimulate action to ensure that the information societies that are emerging today are more, rather than less, equitable than the societies that have preceded them.

DOES ACCESS TO SOCIAL NETWORKS VIOLATE RIGHTS? (Atena Editora), 2023

The following research document states that the “vulnerability” of new technologies enables the rationalization, speed and security of different skills, however, their use can be contradictory to human rights, becoming a threat to harm human beings, the risk of vulnerability in the private life of the individual can even be reduced, since there is the possibility of harming personality rights, both nationally and internationally. The prosperity of technology has recognized that having a smart terminal creates a series of isolated consequences since they not only provoke rights as established by the third generation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also represent and incorporate great challenges, such as lack, social inequalities at various levels, discrimination, armed conflicts, blackmail, illegality, lack of democracy, as well as weakness in institutions New technologies offer benefits to human beings, instituting, regulating and eliminating barriers, however, they must be manipulated as learning or work tools, with responsibility in order to prevent human rights and personality rights from being lacerated. from third parties through the use of social networks, so the gap in learning, capacity, responsibility, commitment and security must be implemented when using social networks. The excessive, undisciplined, independent and free use of communication and information technologies manages to undermine their functioning, putting the rights of third parties at risk, since personal data can be manipulated without the consent of the individual, putting the rights of the individual at risk. rights of personality, intellect and even heritage, freedom, security and even the life of human beings, since various social networks have an implicit risk of being violated.

2021

This report contains several analyses on social media datasets with a focus on internet technology and human rights. The main part of the report is about identifying trends in discussions on Reddit with a basis on human rights, and additionally it contains several deep dives into different focus areas, which constitute stand-alone smaller parts. The deep dives were chosen to highlight several of the ten key rights and principles of human rights online. They each study a specific case at the interface of human rights and internet technology. The main aim of this report was to analyze discussions on several social media platforms to identify trends and topics relevant for the next generation internet. A secondary goal was to examine social issues that accompany internet technology. We have analyzed various data sources from the platforms Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook. They have a large number of users and encompass discussions on internet technology, societal issues, news, and everyda...

International Review of Information Ethics 16, 2011

This article aims to widen the question of online social networks sites (SNS) ethics going beyond the questions of privacy and self-management of data, yet dominant in the public debates. The main theoretical framework developed in this paper, based both on recent contributions and classical sociology, is that SNS have to deal with the social dynamics of distinction and social classes like in any other spaces. From this perspective, focusing only on online privacy is too subjective and individualistic to provide a satisfying answer. Thus, we suggest that transparency should be considered as a social and collective fact rather than an individual characteristic. Boundaries between online and offline world are becoming increasingly porous and we argue, although acknowledging certain particular characteristics of SNS, that SNS ethics should be less about the specificities of online behaviors than on their articulation with the social world.

T his article analyses the development of global human rights adjudication through the lens of Ost and van de Ker- chove’s “law as a network” theory. It is sub- mitted that the network metaphor (used liberally, albeit in line with Ost and van de Kerchove’s thought) is useful to describe and interpret the evolution of human rights law as well as the strategies used by its main actors. In that respect, it emphasises three main features of the human rights web, i.e. its fluidity, polycentricity and interdepend- ence. Importantly, these characteristics are not stable properties of human rights law but they are instead the result of endless tensions between openness and closure, cen- tralisation and marginalisation, solidarity and authority. In that sense, the network metaphor keeps us from overdramatizing attempts to establish or restore some hier- archy and borders as well as converse en- deavours to usher in an era of human rights oecumenism. These opposing trends are pre- cisely the sign that human rights operate in a network-like environment. To put it differ- ently, these conflicting moves nurture rather than undermine the human rights network.

ELCOP Yearbook of Human Rights, 2022

This article explores how digital ecosystem accommodates anthropological attachment of human values and vice versa. From this point of view rights and obligations in cyberworlds receive a widespread debate on policy making. It is evident that the concepts of offline human rights are comparatively blurred in Internet. This note reexamines if the historical role of anthropology in strengthening the meaning of rights is equally relevant to digital environment. Considering the nature and structure of online environments, experts have different positions regarding the recognition of human rights in cyberspaces, which have been investigated in this paper. This article also reviews if the ongoing challenges towards ensuring safety and security of individuals and their logical entitlements have any link to Horst and Miller's point of ignorance to anthropological relativism in cyberspaces. Moreover, existing studies stressing for implementation of human rights in cyberspaces ignore the anthropological relativism of digital rights. This paper will weigh the significance of UNHRC's recognition of rights in online ecosystems. All these aspects around digital rights are aimed to answer the questions relating to justification of human rights in cyber worlds and the factors which tend to transform our conventional norms of human rights into digital mode.

International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 2014

Issues regarding human rights and information communications technologies (ICTs) are no longer the stuff of esoteric academic conversations or science-fiction writers' imaginations; they are frontpage news. For example, tracking Google's experience in China in the pages of the New York Times (2013) tells a story of a losing struggle between an Internet search service that had attempted to be unaffected by political interests or state censorship and a regime hostile to human rights. It is obvious who won that tug of war. But what came next was the revelation that Google wasn't simply the conduit of information in its quest to democratize information-it was to become a compliant, albeit reluctant, tool of government surveillance agencies .

2010

expression and privacy into both business practice and corporate culture. For its part, in 2008, Yahoo! created the Business and Human Rights Program, supported by corporate leadership, guided by principles and internal process, staffed by cross-functional teams, tracking an inventory of rights issues, informed by stakeholder engagement, and subject to outside monitoring and accountability. 6 These internal developments are complemented, informed, and reinforced by Yahoo!'s participation in the GNI. From recent postelection violence in Kenya and Moldova facilitated by mobile devices to vibrant online expression in Vietnam, ongoing battles over culturally sensitive (and legally prohibited) imagery online in Turkey and Thailand, and the record proportion of online journalists detained worldwide in 2008, digital tools are associated with voice and power, and governments realize it. Whether as part of the normal sociopolitical milieu or in a moment of crisis, they are increasingly aware not only of the power of new media, but also of the role of private companies in providing-and potentially limiting-that power. Governments also seem to be more cognizant of the unique characteristics of the Net as compared to traditional media, not only in terms of how these traits might allow it to threaten the status quo, but also where associated weaknesses can lie. However mistakenly, many people have come to understand this vulnerability of information and communication technologies (ICT) companies to government interference as the China Problem, owing in large measure to publicized instances in which Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google have failed to adequately protect their users' rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Unfortunately, similar challenges are emerging around the world, oftentimes at the hands of democratic governments, and not only in the Global South, but also in the West. 7 In response to these tensions and understanding the complexity of resolving them, a group of companies, civil society organizations, investors, and academics spent over two years creating a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector, and formed an initiative to take this work forward. Proposed by my colleagues John Palfrey and Jonathan Zittrain in the book Access Denied and elsewhere, 8 the GNI released foundational documents in October 2008 and publicly launched in December 2008 on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The group includes Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, along with numerous noncompany participants, such as Human Rights Watch, Human Rights in China, Committee to Project Journalists, Human Rights First, Calvert Investments, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), and the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, where I work. The process has been rewarding and challenging, seeking to move beyond mistrust, hostility, and competition, drawing upon human rights experiences in sectors as far afield as labor and security, and balancing the perspectives and needs of the diverse participants. It began as three separate processes, driven respectively by companies,