Ethical Approaches & Moderation of Electronic Bulletin Boards

And the Center for Academic Integrity

Mark Reardon

It is undoubtedly so that accompanying the expansion of technology, and

specifically the ability to reach increasingly large audiences, both intended and

unintended, comes the ability to use said mechanism for both purposes deemed

ethical and unethical. One might argue a correlation between the amount and ease

of input and that of misinformation, exploitation of resources, and general use of the

mechanism for ill-intentioned purposes. In order to confine this paper to the chosen

topic of moderator ethics, it is first useful to understand the general progression of

mass media communication development and their associated ethical dimensions.

This paper shall outline the major technological communicative processes of the last

centuries in respect to their audiences, agents of use, and communicative flow. I

shall then discuss in more detail the Internet, why it presents an abundance of

ethical dilemmas, and will concentrate on what is termed “moderator ethics.” In

focusing on moderator ethics, I shall first explain the role of the moderator within

forums, and then present specific dilemmas that can be analyzed through various

ethical perspectives that are relative to work currently being done through the

Center for Academic Integrity hosted here at Clemson University within the Rutland

Institute of Ethics.

Reardon 2

4/18/23

It is the opinion of this paper that using ethical frameworks of virtue-based

ethics, Pirsig’s analysis of quality, Kant’s categorical imperative and perfect duty,

and Mill and Singer’s focus on utilitarianism and one’s moral universe can all be

applied to formulate rules that should result in both an excellent ethical moderator

as well as a well-run discussion site. Furthermore, these approaches can be adopted

to address that which positions the Internet as an ethical bundle, or “moral Medusa.”

This includes the sheer number of users on the Internet today and its capacity to

handle even more, the ability of users to remain anonymous in their interactions

within the Internet, the utility of the Internet, and the central role it has come to

play in the daily lives of millions.

The Progression and Attributes of Communication Technology

Two of the most noteworthy inventions around the turn of the nineteenth

century were that of the telephone and radio. Although highly contested, credit is

given to Alexander Graham Bell around the year of 1876 for the construction of the

telephone, and around 1893-95 inventors such as Telsa, Popov, and Bose began

producing results that would lead to what we now refer to as the radio. We have

seen the magnitude to which these inventions have affected our society, with

notable examples such as Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” which were used to reassure

the nation through both the ability of the radio to reach millions, and the effective

use of rhetoric. For the purposes of this paper, I would like to identify both the

sender and receiver of the telephone and radio, respectively. Within the case of the

Reardon 3

4/18/23

telephone, the sender and receiver traditionally consisted of one person on either

end of the telephone line. Modern techniques such as conferencing, three-way

calling, etc. were not in play at the telephone’s earliest inception. Although through

utilization of a loudspeaker or amplifier one person might have addressed a group

within a given range of hearing, the telephone is perhaps the easiest mechanism to

identify participating parties. The flow of identification regarding the telephone was

two-way, but limited in capacity (number of users on either end of the mechanism).

Before the introduction of the TV, the radio was perhaps the most popular

way to address a large audience. While we need not go into multiple examples for

the purposes of this paper, let us use the aforementioned “fireside chats” to

illustrate the capabilities and user groups concerning the radio. Roosevelt himself

was able to reach millions through his speeches while implementing his New Deal

politics, for the radio itself was inexpensive, and was a popular media device found

in many homes. While the “fireside chat” example shows a single user

communicating with multiple end users, we should note that the sender was the

controller of the information, and the end users were recipients who did not possess

the ability to respond to the message instantly. Although the radio could deliver a

live or taped conversation, this still represents one side delivering communication

to another that cannot instantly respond through the same mechanism. Therefore,

the flow of communication in this example was typically one-way. In a more

contemporary sense, radio frequencies have been used in two-way, mainly

Reardon 4

4/18/23

interpersonal, communication. However, the scope of the radio’s development need

not be examined in depth here.

Between the introductions of radio/telephone technology and that of the

Internet as it has grown to be known today, the television was perhaps one of the

more influential mechanisms introduced in the twentieth century. The identification

of the participants within the process of transmission became more difficult to

identify directly, due to the ability of multiple users to communicate or construct

messages on both sides of the communication process. Although the consideration

of “behind the scenes” agents can be associated with both the telephone and radio,

the television provided multiple mediums – visual and auditory, that increased the

effectiveness of its delivery. Images displayed on the television increased the

exposure of issues and people, including John F. Kennedy, whom was helped

immensely by the televised debates and his charismatic mannerisms.

The Internet and Communication Takeover

The Internet is the most recent medium through which information is

delivered. It has provided the ability to quickly spread information to known and

unknown persons at a rate previously unfathomable. Furthermore, its accessibility

has created increased degrees of utility in locations previously “dark” to

technological access. Although not as accessible around the world, it is possible with

the correct hardware to access the Internet in almost any location on our planet.

Reardon 5

4/18/23

Even where restrictions by governments have limited access, we still have received

reports from monitored locations, specifically through satellite technology. Most

relevant to this paper, it has introduced the variable of anonymousness, which

previously had not played a large role in the dissemination of information. The flow

of communication by use of the Internet can be multi-way, and each agent can be as

anonymous or as prominent as they wish. Therefore, in the application of ethics to

this technology, which I shall focus on within this paper, it is fair to say that a

plethora of ethical dilemmas can potentially arise when dealing with a technology

not specifically owned by any one person, yet governed by many groups (who are

constantly overlapping in jurisdiction), and censored by few. Censorship itself is

worthy of another paper or discussion, for censorship depends on who is

monitoring and by what set of rules they are governed by. Therefore, what may be

legally hosted and constructed in one country may not be the same for another. The

United States has faced this dilemma a number of times in reference to its first

amendment citing the right to free speech, with cases such as the passing of the

Communications Decency Act of 1996, the Children’s Internet Protection Act, and

the Child Online Privacy Act.

At this point I would like to reiterate why it is the Internet poses numerous

dilemmas, and the difficulty in dissecting these situations. The Internet allows users

from all over the world to communicate with one another, whether in a one on one

setting or between groups. Furthermore, any variation of these populations can

correspond. Therefore, the complexity of sheer numbers of users presents potential

Reardon 6

4/18/23

problems when their location, values, culture, etc. are taken into account. Secondly,

the Internet provides all users with the ability to choose which sites to navigate to

and thus provides the ability for one to remain anonymous during all navigation.

This can lead to misrepresentation of one’s self, beliefs, and ideology, which may in

turn elicit information from others under false pretenses. Thus far I have

highlighted the number of people and the confusion that may take place, and the

differing backgrounds of each user and potential conflicts. I have also spoken

regarding the ability of users to remain anonymous, which poses a threat in the

form of misrepresentation of oneself.

It is possible to list any number of items that lead to ethical dilemmas,

however in the case of the Internet the factors mentioned above might be contained

if not for the following qualities of the Internet. The ethical “playground” turns into

an ethical “park” and progresses in magnitude to an ethical “jungle” compared to the

previous communications mechanisms once the qualities of utility, scope, and

centralization are introduced. The Internet has become central in terms of its utility,

to a point where one can now buy their groceries, home products, and even pizza

online. This introduces security risks and the possibility of fraud, as well financial

data exposure. The Internet is also used for social and business reasons, which

makes it a central part of most of our lives, if we live in a developed society where

access is available. For instance a popular statistic purports that the average

number of computers per household within the United Sates is 1.5 computers.

Reardon 7

4/18/23

Furthermore, the Internet can serve as a replacement for the telephone and radio, as

well as the TV, and thus inherits ethical responsibilities from these sources.

The Forum Moderator & The Center for Academic Integrity

Specifically within the Internet, this paper wishes to refine its scope to that of

“moderator ethics.” These are the ethical decisions or dilemmas that are in play

when on is the administrator, or moderator, of a public or private bulletin board.

The access to the electronic bulletin board, or discussion forum as it is popularly

termed, shall not be taken into consideration within this analysis. It should be

assumed that “private” in this discussion regarding bulletin boards refers to a

discussion board or site that one would need to disclose information in order to join,

whether this information is credible or need validation needs consideration. Since

the validity of users cannot be challenged without undergoing an arduous process in

the majority of registration processes at Internet sites that host discussion boards,

this analysis shall make no further distinction between public and private bulletin

boards. Furthermore, the terms “discussion board,” “forum,” and “bulletin board”

shall henceforth be used interchangeably.

Within the Center for Academic Integrity hosted at Clemson University, a

discussion board has been created for professionals that are currently members of

the organization in order to promote academic integrity. In constructing this forum,

the objectives were to produce a site in which multiple resources could be located

Reardon 8

4/18/23

and submitted by users; where users take and give in terms of information,

knowledge, and collaboration. The site hosts a variety of discussions from how to

construct honor codes at colleges or how to start an academic integrity group or

club, how to raise awareness (regarding academic integrity) on campuses, to calls

for papers, information about conferences, and the discussion of possible grants and

scholarships available to those interested. It is important the target audience and

forum rules be identified here, as well as the process for registration (and thus

access).

Any institution that has a membership to the CAI (Center for Academic

Integrity) anywhere in the world can have as many users as they wish register to

post and utilize the forum. The only requirement is that they are able to register

with an address ending in “.edu” so that their affiliation can be somewhat validated.

Therefore, the target audience consists of three groups: those members who are

faculty, those who are students, and those who are temporary guests. Guest access is

allowed in only one section of the forum, and guests are not allowed to view any

other topics. The institutions currently registered include a number from outside

the United States, which is interpreted as a great addition to the site given it

provides a more holistic and well-rounded perspective offered to those who have

questions.

This paper shall now move to an analysis of what constitutes an “ethical”

moderator of an electronic bulletin board and how these actions are viewed through

three ethical frameworks – virtue-based ethics, deontological ethics, and utilitarian

Reardon 9

4/18/23

ethics. The analysis shall show that the issues of the Internet cited above – the

number of users, the ability to remain anonymous, the utility and direction of

communication, and the central role Internet correspondence has come to play in

our lives, can be specifically seen within the electronic bulletin boards, and more

specifically, within the electronic bulletin boards of the Center for Academic

Integrity. Using ethical frameworks of virtue-based ethics, Pirsig’s analysis of

quality, Kant’s categorical imperative and perfect duty, and Mill and Singer’s focus

on utilitarianism and one’s moral universe can all be applied to formulate rules that

should result in both an excellent ethical moderator as well as a well-run discussion

site.

Who is the Moderator – Function & Purpose

The following is used by Richard Lowe to define the “ethical” moderator. An

ethical moderator should “be a friendly presence, someone who is always present,

yet is virtually invisible in many ways. Their job is to make the conversation flow

smoothly, keep users on topic and keep people interested.” This exemplifies the

main job of the forum moderator- to take on an almost omniscient role and to

intermediate only when necessary, so as not to restrict the freedom of discussion,

the direction of the conversation (within reason), or the overall quality of the

thread. Additional tasks and qualities of the moderator include recruiting new

members, overseeing topics and discussions without passing subjective judgment,

removing threats to the community, and to contribute or stimulate discussion

without any degree of judgment or criticism. A moderator is to be seen as somewhat

Reardon 10

4/18/23

of a peer, with specific interest in the site or subject matter, and who retains and

reiterates through policy the overall objectives of the site or organization when

necessary. It has been stated that well moderated sites and discussion forums

practically run themselves, and users are not hesitant to express viewpoints due to

repercussions.

Virtue-Based Ethical Analysis

I shall begin with Aristotle and virtue based ethics as they apply to the role of

the ethical moderator. Aristotle offers an alternative to theories situated within

moral rightness or duty, and offers several distinctions worth discussing at this

point. Aristotle separates what he terms “intellectual virtue” and “moral virtue,” and

in doing so, facilitates the application of both virtues to the moderator function. The

second distinction, which is of moral virtues, invokes the doctrine of the “golden

mean.” It focuses on the mean between excess and deficiency. This is most relevant

in the role of the moderator and that of what is referred to as a “hot thread,” or

thread that has generated numerous responses. If there is a point to which a thread

becomes redundant and thus lacks substance, an ethical moderator may choose to

close the thread and open another similarly related topic to generate new thoughts

and posts. However, if a topic is posted that seems must too broad and will result in

excess, or much to narrow to generate discussion (perhaps a single answer will do),

then the ethical moderator may choose to reposition these topics within the site

where they can be referenced or refined. For a specific example, within the Center of

Reardon 11

4/18/23

Academic Integrity, a post of “what is Academic Integrity” may appear extremely

relevant, but in reality is a topic that provokes excessiveness. Although helpful and

intellectually stimulating, the topic can be split into sub-topics which can help refine

the discussion so that users may navigate to that which suits their needs best. Those

who post commercial resources and have no intention of contributing to the site

other than for their own good can exemplify deficiency in forum posting, and

warrants the attention of the ethical moderator.

If the moderator is to respect the distinction of intellectual virtue, or

reasoning, then he or she shall find ground upon which to stand in moderating what

may seem irrelevant posts. If posts within the forum are blatantly disregardful of

the overall topic of discussion, and thus do not contribute to what may constitute

intellectual virtue, then perhaps the moderator may choose to remove these posts

or intervene in the discussion. I believe it important to note here that this

distinction of what is and is not contributive to the overall topic of the forum may

not be as simple as it first appears. Indeed, one might argue that this might lead to

superfluous actions on behalf of the moderator, wherein unnecessary judgment is

passed. The form or shape of a discussion need not be framed within those limits

understood by the moderator, or simply phrased, the path of reasoning may involve

more than the moderator can predict or even comprehend. Aristotle’s intellectual

virtue might lead to the recommendation of this paper- that an ethical moderator

not be quick to judge, and may allow discussions to take form as they may before

determining their role. This can be found in the writings of Robert Pirsig, who

Reardon 12

4/18/23

concludes in his popular book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that

perhaps what we seek ultimately is that of “quality” in as he exemplifies, a variety of

expressions. If it is quality that we seek as moderators, then we must look at the

discussion both as a sum of its parts and additionally as the concept termed

“gestalt,” or the ability of the parts to constitute more than just their respective

contributions. Therefore, this leads the discussion of the role of the moderator into

deontological-based ethical frameworks, or those that focus more on the outcomes

of actions.

Deontological Ethical Analysis

The deontological ethical approach to the functions of the moderator provide

an interesting debate between the views surrounding the categorical imperative as

put forth by Kant and those deontologists that are not moral absolutists and justify

actions by analyzing their repercussions. Let us first begin with Kant, and discuss his

notion of perfect duty. In constructing guidelines for the ethical moderator that

admit no exceptions, the degree of consistency appeals to those that wish to

maintain certain standards throughout their moderation of the forums. However, in

the case of the Academic Integrity forums, this clashes with views of cultural

relativism and subjectivism that base the ethics of actions on viewpoints or cultural

perspectives, which CAI wishes to encourage and respect. While Kant’s perfect duty

can certainly be applied to moderator ethics in some respects (no profanity under

any circumstances), it cannot be the philosophical approach for the moderator who

wishes not to overindulge in the forum, and who wishes to encourage adherence to

Reardon 13

4/18/23

all rules without exceptions. Furthermore, in the example of profanity mentioned

above, many sites choose to implement scripts that automatically change vulgar

words into alternatives. For instance, if a poster submits a sentence using the word

“shit” this is changed to spell “sugar” when it appears to the public. I believe this is a

violation of intellectual property in a sense that it may change the tone and the

recipient’s reaction to something unintended by the poster. While the perfect duty

may state there is to be no profanity, it does not provide the solution for how to

correct one that crosses its boundaries. Thus another ethical dilemma arises; what

is one to change the post to, or is the post to be allowed at all? It is my suggestion

that Kant contributes to my own moderation of the CAI forums in that I resend posts

containing profanity to the original poster asking them to revise their statement,

which preserves their right to express their ideas, with the modification that it be

done after a rereading of the posting guidelines.

The categorical imperative put forth by Kant has been widely adopted (with

or without knowledge of its origin) by most sites hosting discussion boards. An

example is that of Wikipedia’s posting guidelines, which state, “1) Participate in a

respectful and civil way. 2) Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. 3)

Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and avoid upsetting other editors

whenever possible.” The first guideline seems to encapsulate the idea put forth by

Kant of acting as if your actions were to become a universal maxim and doing that

which you would like to live by if such were the case. The later rules appear to be

examples of such. What moderators must consider in adopting this approach is the

Reardon 14

4/18/23

depth that potential posters must consider in terms of culture, ideologies, etc. to

respect these wishes. Furthermore, in confluence with modern interpretations of

Kant’s categorical imperative, it may be useful for forum moderators to formulate

more specific rules that Kant seems to imply. For example, in Wikipedia’s first rule

of posting in a respectful and civil way, it may circumvent problems to define

specifically what will be regarded as “respectful” and “civil.” Due to the various

natures of forums and their topics, a certain degree of specificity may be in order,

but having said this, it is not the opinion of this paper that the categorical imperative

be rejected outright, but rather interpreted as a guideline instead of a steadfast

principle. If it is consistency that matters within this ethical approach for forum

moderators, and a goal is that of constructing the correct or best set of rules, it is

perhaps helpful to consult with the target audience in helping define terms to

encompass (in the case of CAI) the worldly view and holistic approach it seeks to

reflect.

Utilitarianism and The Moral Universe

As suggested in numerous texts, perhaps the most popular teleological

theory is John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism. This theory is formed around right actions

creating the most happiness, and wrong actions creating the opposite of happiness.

Using pleasure as the ”happiness” Mill seeks to promote (the theory of hedonism),

Mill defines people as counting equally regardless of stature. This degree of

utilitarianism is useful for the ethical moderator, who should value the opinions of

Reardon 15

4/18/23

all users, regardless of philosophy or background. In the case of the CAI forums, this

approach defines the integrity that we wish to seek in the sense of constructing a

“whole” in terms of a body of opinions that values no post or poster more so than

another, and treats every post and user with respect. Utilitarianism’s balance of

pleasure versus the opposite of pleasure speaks volumes to both the role of the

moderator in the promotion of his site, and that of the user, who ideally seeks to

post in a manner in which his comment is of most use and inflicts the least amount

of deconstructive “damage.” The pleasure, or happiness of the site from the view of

its administrators, is a balance of providing for registered users as well as recruiting

new members to keep discussions upbeat and full of fresh opinions. While this

seems plausible at first, this is a fine line for the allotting of time and energy on the

part of the administrator, for he or she should be careful not to cause “the opposite

of happiness” among one group while attempting to serve the other. Thus it is the

recommendation of this paper that although recruitment is a large part of

constructing a forum that runs efficiently and effectively (and ideally almost on its

own), it must be done so after meeting the needs of those that have been with the

group prior to the inception of the bulletin board. This can be done through surveys,

polls, and other pooling methods that can be hosted on the site. Utilitarianism also

ties in with the writings of Peter Singer and his discussion of one’s “moral universe.”

Initially, existing members of the CAI group are within the moderator’s moral

universe, but eventually, this universe must be dynamic in that it must incorporate

more members and allot time to recruiting these potential new members. The

Reardon 16

4/18/23

question then remains of what assortment of time should be devoted to each task,

and to what capacity should the moderator’s moral universe be expandable to?

Conclusions

In formulating conclusions concerning the role of the ethical moderator, let

us recall the specific aspects of the Internet, specifically electronic bulletin boards,

and show how the ethical frameworks here help address each obstacle. It has been

stated that the sheer volume of the Internet poses a threat akin to a surge of

electricity that shorts out all it is attached to. This metaphor means that the task of

the moderator may become cumbersome due to the users wishing to join. We have

turned to Peter Singer and his defining of one’s moral universe to conclude that

existing members should be satisfied first before dealing with the balance of

recruitment and the pleasure or happiness of CAI members. The forum is at first

sight also threatened by the degree of anonymousness that the Internet provides.

This paper uses the categorical imperative to construct rules that all users should

abide by, whether registered and choosing to display information or choosing to

remain unknown.

This paper has also cited the utility of the Internet as a possible ethical

burden in that its use can be the means to a variety of ends. Aristotle, the categorical

imperative, and Kant’s discussions of consistency address this matter. If users are

bonded by the same set of rules, then the utility of each post should be within the set

Reardon 17

4/18/23

guidelines and should seek to contribute to the overall quality and pleasure of the

forum, then the variety of uses of the Internet may be contained within the forum.

Finally we cited central role computers play in lives around the world today, and the

benefits to discussion forums this may equal to, for example providing multiple

perspectives. This paper uses Singer to define how one’s moral universe must be

dynamic and expand to cultivate this within the forum, as well as to address the

needs of these users of different ideologies.

Thus in varying capacities each of the three ethical approaches cited here can

lend hand to the cultivation of an ethical moderator. By beginning the paper by

identifying that which makes the Internet susceptible to ethical dilemmas, and then

moving to a more specific topic of electronic bulletin boards, this paper uses the

ethical frameworks to effectively address each of the major components of the

Internet, as well as further ethical complications that came to light during the

individual consideration of each framework. Together, the conclusions and the

recommendations of this paper help construct what one might identify as an ethical

moderator.

Reardon 18

4/18/23

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford Translation. (ed. J.

Barnes). 2 vols. Princeton, 1984.

Broad C. D. Kant: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Henrich, Dieter. The Unity of Reason: Essays on Kant’s Philosophy. Edited and with

an introduction by Richard L. Velkley; translated by Jeffrey Edwards… [et al.].

Harvard University Press, 1994

Mautner, Thomas. "[http://www.utilitarianism.com/jsmill.htm} "The Penguin

Dictionary of Philosophy" ISBN 0-14-051250-0]". Retrieved on 10/23/08.

Rachels, Stewart, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 5th edition, McGraw Hill, 2007.

Rosen, Frederick. Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill.(Routledge Studies in

Ethics & Moral Theory), 2003.

Singer, Peter. Writings on an Ethical Life. Harper Collins. New York. 2000.

Sterba, James (ed)., Ethics: The Big Questions, Blackwell Publishers, 1998.

White, James. Contemporary Moral Problems. 2003. Wadsworth. Stamford. 1-96.