CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Ethics and Social Impacts of AIFreedom of Expression and DefamationDigitalization, Law, and Regulation

The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers

Open access
Taddeo, Mariarosaria, Floridi, Luciano·2016·Science and Engineering Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-015-9734-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Online service providers (OSPs)-such as AOL, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter-significantly shape the informational environment (infosphere) and influence users' experiences and interactions within it. There is a general agreement on the centrality of OSPs in information societies, but little consensus about what principles should shape their moral responsibilities and practices. In this article, we analyse the main contributions to the debate on the moral responsibilities of OSPs. By endorsing the method of the levels of abstract (LoAs), we first analyse the moral responsibilities of OSPs in the web (LoA IN). These concern the management of online information, which includes information filtering, Internet censorship, the circulation of harmful content, and the implementation and fostering of human rights (including privacy). We then consider the moral responsibilities ascribed to OSPs on the web (LoA ON) and focus on the existing legal regulation of access to users' data. The overall analysis provides an overview of the current state of the debate and highlights two main results. First, topics related to OSPs' public role-especially their gatekeeping function, their corporate social responsibilities, and their role in implementing and fostering human rights-have acquired increasing relevance in the specialised literature. Second, there is a lack of an ethical framework that can (a) define OSPs' responsibilities, and (b) provide the fundamental sharable principles necessary to guide OSPs' conduct within the multicultural and international context in which they operate. This article contributes to the ethical framework necessary to deal with (a) and (b) by endorsing a LoA enabling the definition of the responsibilities of OSPs with respect to the well-being of the infosphere and of the entities inhabiting it (LoA For).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11948-015-9734-1

Cites

131 of 131 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Consent in the online space is problematic; users often lack the choice and are presented with a 'take it or leave it' option when accessing online services.

    “Finally, consent in the online space is also problematic; users often lack the choice and are presented with a ‘take it or leave it’ option when accessing online services (Nissenbaum 2011; Taddeo and Floridi 2015).”

    From How to Design AI for Social Good: Seven Essential Factors (2020) · cites this paper as Taddeo and Floridi 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Anderson, M. (2008). The gaze of the perfect search engine: Google as an institution of dataveillance. In A. Spink & M. Zimmer (Eds.), Web search: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 77-99). Berlin: Springer.
  2. Elkin-Koren, N. (2001). Let the crawlers crawl: On virtual gatekeepers and the right to exclude indexing. University of Dayton Law Review, 26, 179-188.
  3. Kerr, I. (2002). Internet users dependence and the duty of loyalty. In T. Mendina & B. Rockenbach (Eds.), Ethics and electronic information (pp. 166-176). North Carolina: McFarland Press.
  4. You are not a gadget: A manifesto (Reprint edition). New York: Vintage
  5. Negroponte, N. (1996). Being digital. New edition edition. Rydalmere: Coronet Books.
  6. Santoro, M. A. (1998). Engagement with integrity: What we should expect multinational firms to do about human rights in China. Business and the Contemporary World, 10(1), 25-54.
  7. Solove, D. J. (2008). Understanding privacy. In SSRN scholarly paper ID 1127888. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1127888
  8. Spink, A., & Zimmer, M. (2008). Web search (Vol. 14). Information Science and Knowledge Management. Berlin: Springer.
  9. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Republic.com. With a new afterword by the author edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Taddeo, Mariarosaria
ORCID
Venue
Science and Engineering Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2015-11-27
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
1575-1603
ISSN
  • 1353-3452 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5546
DOI
10.1007/s11948-015-9734-1
OpenAlex
W2304096286
Cited by
141
References
131
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3
FWCI
2.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Science and Engineering Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
Keywords
online service providers, moral responsibility, infosphere, information filtering, internet censorship, harmful content, human rights, privacy, corporate social responsibility, gatekeeping, data access regulation, ethical frameworks, information society
MeSH terms
Humans, Human Rights, Morals, Computer Security, Internet

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review