توجیه پذیری اخلاقی فیلترینگ شبکه های اجتماعی در ایران (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
شبکه های اجتماعی مجازی در زندگی امروز بشر دارای اهمیت و نقش بسیار تعیین کننده ای هستند. این رسانه ها با توجه به شرایط فنی و امکان کنشگری که برای مخاطبین خود بوجود می آورند، قابلیت ایجاد فرصت و تهدید را بصورت همزمان برای کاربران خود ایجاد می کنند. در ایران سیاست فیلترینگ همواره مورد نقدهای جدی قرار گرفته است. این پژوهش کاربردی با توجه به اهمیت نقش اخلاق در سیاستگذاری که می تواند ضمن سهولت پذیرش توسط مردم باعث کم هزینه تر شدن سیاستگذاری گردد به بررسی توجیه پذیری اخلاقی فیلترینگ در شبکه های اجتماعی می پردازد. روش گردآوری داده های این پژوهش تلفیقی از روش کتابخانه ای و میدانی است. مطابق یافته های این پژوهش اکثریت مطلق مخاطبین، سیاست فیلترینگ را اخلاقی نمی دانند. مطابق نظر مخاطبین، فیلترینگ در محورهای ذیل با موازین اخلاقی در تعارض است: عدم توجیه و اقناع سازی مردم، تضییع حق فردی و کرامت انسانی، آسیب به منافع مردم، بی نتیجه و غیر کاربردی بودن، زمینه سازی تخلف و فساد، بی عدالتی در دسترسی به امکانات فضای مجازی، غیرمنصفانه بودن و تضعیف صداقت و شفافیت. در نهایت نیز پیشنهادهای کاربردی برای کاهش تبعات فیلترینگ ارائه می شود.Ethical Justifiability of Filtering Social Media in Iran
IntroductionVirtual social networks play a crucial role in contemporary human life, offering numerous capabilities at a low cost. These platforms create technical features and possibilities of action, thus providing both opportunities and threats to their users. The policy of filtering social media has been implementing for over two decades in Iran. However, it has faced significant criticism. As an applied inquiry, the current study explored the ethical justification of filtering social media, emphasizing the importance of ethics in policymaking. Ethical considerations can actually make policies more acceptable to the public and less costly to implement. In this respect, the study aimed to investigate the ethical justification of social media restrictions from the user’s perspective, and to provide solutions for increasing acceptance of filtering policies and mitigating their adverse consequences. The study sought to answer the following question: What are the reactions and moral perspectives of social media users in Iran regarding filtering policy?Literature ReviewThere are several studies concerned with the social media control. For instance, Segura (2018) focused on how the current use of social media, particularly Facebook, functions as a community for public dialogue, which can be considered a key component of human rights. She argues that the public sphere relies on civic participation, but content moderation policies by platform owners disrupt this concept. Rosa (2022) contends that democratic political concepts are implicitly or explicitly based on an efficient arena for the formation of public opinion within a relevant media space. Therefore, social network policies must establish a reliable connection with the processes of public will formation. Spinello (2006) analyzed the costs, damages, and ethical issues of the Internet and cyberspace. He opposes direct government intervention, arguing that institutions such as schools, families, kindergartens, and libraries should replace the government in controlling immoral content. In his M.A. thesis, MovahhedAmjad (2013) examined the issue of filtering from the perspective of Islamic jurisprudence and Sharia. According to him, the necessity of filtering is relative, being appropriate for some but not for others. In an article titled “Filtering and the Problem of Ethical Conflict,” Shahriari and Rahmati (2016) explored the duties of users and the government regarding filtering. They discussed several key dichotomies such as protecting privacy vs. doing good to others, or punishing wrongdoers vs. not punishing the innocent. Materials and MethodsThe study used the library research and fieldwork to collect the data. A descriptive method was employed for the library research, while interviews were used for fieldwork activities. The relevant data was collected through semistructured interviews with active users of social media. To formulate the interview questions, evidence was gathered from the speeches and interviews by highranking proponents of filtering in the country. The content was categorized into six criteria: belief, political security, societal security, public morality and modesty, economic security, and law and order. Each criterion was then assigned a main question in the interview, with the questions being largely standardized. Initially, interviewees were asked about their personal characteristics, including age, marital status, education, and internet usage. Following this, approximately 14 questions were posed based on the six criteria. Theoretical saturation was achieved after conducting 25 interviews. Then, the data was analyzed using a qualitative and inductive approach. Concerning the theoretical framework, the study used liberal theories of public justification that favor public reason, along with the idea of the common good advocated by communutarism. To avoid bias, the research took into account two important perspectives on mandatory laws. The first emphasizes individual rights and the necessity of justification before coercion, a viewpoint represented by liberals who advocate for common reason. The second perspective is rooted in communutarism, which prioritizes the common good and asserts that the government can limit certain individual rights to secure or preserve the common good. The ethicality of filtering media content is based on the theory of common good endorsed by communutarism, while considering it unethical aligns with the liberal idea of common reason.Results and Discussion In the fieldwork phase, indepth interviews were conducted with several students from Allameh Tabataba’i University. According to the results, the vast majority of respondents did not consider the filtering policy to be ethical, based on the modern ethical approach that assesses the morality of actions by their correctness. Regarding the impact of providing filtering evidence to users, some respondents reported a slight influence on their opinions, which highlights the role and effect of persuasion. The respondents identified several points of conflict between ethical standards and filtering, including the lack of justification and persuasion, violation of individual rights and human dignity, harm to personal interests, ineffectiveness and impracticality, potential for violation and corruption, inequitable access to cyberspace resources, unfairness, and a weakening of integrity and transparency.ConclusionBased on the results and discussion, the study concluded with several practical suggestions to mitigate the consequences of filtering. It emphasized the need for a systematic educational program to familiarize users with cyberspace, focusing on education and training. Building a culture among users is seen as essential, alongside using limited and smart filtering methods. The study also recommended that control of cyberspace be handed over to families, and suggested shifting the government’s perspective from a threatoriented approach to social media to one that focuses on opportunities. Additionally, authorities should adhere to the same restrictions placed on messengers, and there should be transparency regarding profit motives in filtering, such as rents from selling filter breakers. The interests and livelihood of users in cyberspace should be considered, and a longterm plan needs to be developed to create highquality and secure indigenous messaging platforms.
تبلیغات
