The contemporary information economy is made up of prosumers—those who simultaneously produce and consume. This is exciting, as we lay-folk become micro-journalists, creating content and spreading what others create. However, such a system poses serious questions about the ethics of sharing practices.

In what follows, I offer a skeleton guideline for the ethics of sharing. It is purposely broad so as to remain flexible. I offer three key guiding principles: Who always matters; Intention always matters; and The law is a really good suggestion.

1) Who always matters

The identity and network size of the content producer matters, as does the identity and network size of the sharer.

Content produced by public figures are generally fair game. Content produced by mere mortals (i.e., the rest of us) should be handled more carefully. This has traditionally been the conventional ethics of journalism in newspapers, magazines, and the evening newscast. Such ethical conventions are put in place to protect the privacy of private citizens, given the power of journalists to tell someone else’s story. In the age of digitization, we are all the tellers of other’s stories. To do so responsibly and respectfully, it is important to think about who’s story we share, and what the consequences will be for that person.

Of course, not all sharing is equally  consequential. Some people have a broader public reach—more Klout, if you will—than others. Content shared by those with name recognition and  large followings hold greater weight and spread further than content shared by those with less name recognition and smaller followings. Rather than a polemic divide, we can think of this as a sharing power continuum. For instance, Jon Stewart has far stronger sharing power than a local politician, who maintains stronger sharing power than a citizen in the town that politician governs. As a great philosopher of our time once said, “With great power, comes great responsibility”-Spiderman. Those with lots of sharing power have greater reason to err on the side of privacy maintenance.

2) Intention always matters

Before sharing, ask yourself if it is clear whether the person intended to share it beyond the original platform or not. This relates back to point 1: who matters.  If the content producer is you, someone you know, or someone with whom you have communicated, you can relatively easily discern intention. Whenever possible, share in line with the content producer’s wishes. When personal knowledge of producers’ intentions are unavailable, type of content can be a good clue.

Some kinds of content are clearly intended for sharing, while others are clearly not. For example, naked pictures sent via SMS are clearly private, while a magazine article is clearly public. Often, however, intention is murky. For instance, publicly available tweets and Facebook posts pose an ethical-sharing dilemma. Technically, they are already out there, and the technological affordances are such that the content is easily reproduced. Indeed these content producers did not use the technologically afforded settings in a way that ensured privacy.  At the same time, research on digital inequality tells us that it is often vulnerable populations who are less skilled in navigating digital technologies, and therefore more likely to unknowingly make their content available.

To be safe, if intention is unclear, for any reason, assume naivety and proceed with caution.

3) The Law is a Really Good Suggestion

Laws are put in place to protect and ensure order, but following the law is not synonymous with doing the Right Thing. As a practice, be aware of the law before making a decision. If it is illegal to share something, think about why it is illegal, consider the consequences of breaking that law, and, as mentioned in point 1, when you think about the consequences, always qualify them with for whom?

For example, many academic journal articles are copyrighted to publishing companies, and kept behind paywalls. Technically, it is illegal for me to post my own articles on a public website, but I do so anyway, with reckless abandon. I believe academic research is a public good and I have no interest in protecting the financial wellbeing of those who seek profits from treating this public good as a scarce resource.  However, all images I post to Cyborgology are either licensed for sharing through Creative Commons, or I have received personal permission from the photographer or artist, as failing to do so would violate the terms of ownership over personal creative property.

Importantly, consider that breaking the law might land you in jail. This does not mean one shouldn’t share, but when treating the law as mere suggestion, jail and hefty fines are matters of consideration.

Follow Jenny on Twitter (where you are welcome to share all of her tweets) @Jenny_L_Davis

Headline pic: Source