What do you think?
Rate this book
A Philosopher Looks at Digital Communication
Communication is complicated, and so is the ethics of communication. We communicate about innumerable topics, to varied audiences, using a gamut of technologies. The ethics of communication, therefore, has to address a wide range of technical, ethical and epistemic requirements. In this book, Onora O'Neill shows how digital technologies have made communication more demanding: they can support communication with huge numbers of distant and dispersed recipients; they can amplify or suppress selected content; and they can target or ignore selected audiences. Often this is done anonymously, making it harder for readers and listeners, viewers and browsers, to assess which claims are true or false, reliable or misleading, flaky or fake. So how can we empower users to assess and evaluate digital communication, so that they can tell which standards it meets and which it flouts? That is the challenge which this book explores.
150 pages, Paperback
Published April 14, 2022
2 people are currently reading
29 people want to read
About the author
Onora O'Neill
34 books32 followersOnora Sylvia O'Neill, Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve CH CBE FBA FRS (born 23 August 1941) is a philosopher and a crossbench member of the House of Lords.
The daughter of Sir Con Douglas Walter O'Neill, she was educated partly in Germany and at St Paul's Girls' School, London before studying philosophy, psychology and physiology at Oxford University. She went on to complete a doctorate at Harvard University, with John Rawls as supervisor. During the 1970s she taught at Barnard College, the women's college in Columbia University, New York City. In 1977 she returned to Britain and took up a post at the University of Essex; she was Professor of Philosophy there when she became Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge in 1992.
She is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, a former President of the British Academy 1988–1989 and chaired the Nuffield Foundation 1998–2010. In 2003, she was the founding President of the British Philosophical Association (BPA). In 2013 she held the Spinoza Chair of Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam. Until October 2006, she was the Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge, and she currently chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
(from Wikipedia)
The daughter of Sir Con Douglas Walter O'Neill, she was educated partly in Germany and at St Paul's Girls' School, London before studying philosophy, psychology and physiology at Oxford University. She went on to complete a doctorate at Harvard University, with John Rawls as supervisor. During the 1970s she taught at Barnard College, the women's college in Columbia University, New York City. In 1977 she returned to Britain and took up a post at the University of Essex; she was Professor of Philosophy there when she became Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge in 1992.
She is an Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, a former President of the British Academy 1988–1989 and chaired the Nuffield Foundation 1998–2010. In 2003, she was the founding President of the British Philosophical Association (BPA). In 2013 she held the Spinoza Chair of Philosophy at the University of Amsterdam. Until October 2006, she was the Principal of Newnham College, Cambridge, and she currently chairs the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
(from Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
April 5, 2022
A Philosopher Looks at Digital Communication by Onora O'Neill falls into the category of book, for me, that both delights and frustrates. All in all, a very useful contribution though one I think could be made far more powerful.
The positives for me, and they far outnumber the negatives, have to do with the historical approach and the application of that information to our current environment. While I would have liked a bit more of a prescriptive book, or at least a more prescriptive closing chapter or two, I think this is more of a contribution for others to build on rather than any kind of solution(s). To the extent there were prescriptive ideas, they tended toward broad, albeit excellent, ideas and not policies nor suggested legislation or regulation.
My biggest negative was the blandness of the book. The ethics courses were always among my favorite, and when ethics was explored, whether in courses I took or those I taught, the discussions were lively. This book is most definitely not lively. While it is important to make sure the reader understands what is and is not being considered and the working definitions for the ideas used, I think those points can be made in less repetitive terms and with far more clarity. I want to make sure not to give the impression that the book lacks clarity, the arguments are quite clear and the presentation is certainly accessible, but in making sure to narrow the discussion to the specific desired focus, there were many instances of repetition and more explanation than was needed.
I would absolutely recommend this book, both to those interested in our current state of communication as well as policymakers who would like some foundational ethics with which to make policy.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
The positives for me, and they far outnumber the negatives, have to do with the historical approach and the application of that information to our current environment. While I would have liked a bit more of a prescriptive book, or at least a more prescriptive closing chapter or two, I think this is more of a contribution for others to build on rather than any kind of solution(s). To the extent there were prescriptive ideas, they tended toward broad, albeit excellent, ideas and not policies nor suggested legislation or regulation.
My biggest negative was the blandness of the book. The ethics courses were always among my favorite, and when ethics was explored, whether in courses I took or those I taught, the discussions were lively. This book is most definitely not lively. While it is important to make sure the reader understands what is and is not being considered and the working definitions for the ideas used, I think those points can be made in less repetitive terms and with far more clarity. I want to make sure not to give the impression that the book lacks clarity, the arguments are quite clear and the presentation is certainly accessible, but in making sure to narrow the discussion to the specific desired focus, there were many instances of repetition and more explanation than was needed.
I would absolutely recommend this book, both to those interested in our current state of communication as well as policymakers who would like some foundational ethics with which to make policy.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
May 2, 2022
As always, Onora O’Neill distills an issue to its essence and makes complex matters accessible to lay readers. Her analysis of the (seemingly largely ignored today) ethical dimensions of digital communication is clear and concise. The crux is, interestingly, tracing the origin of our contemporary laissez-faire view toward the potential and actual harms of digital media to a shift in priority in ethics from duties to rights about a century ago. That explains a lot about the perceived unfettered right to free expression however little the value (or great the harm) of what one has to say. O’Neill focuses largely on the should-be accountability of the source of communication (particularly those who recklessly promulgate falsehoods). A sequel would be valuable—focusing on the epistemic and ethical responsibilities of the receiver/reader of these communications, for that is where the trumping of duties by rights provides so many marks for so many cons. . .
August 31, 2024
From a book about Digital/Social Communication/Media written by a philosopher, I expected more analysis. She mentioned Socrates a couple of times, some ethical questions, and facts regarding Trump/Brexit, and some opinions regarding anonymity, but lacks the depth for the implications from the philosophical point of view of how Digital/Social Communication/Media and mainly concentrations in the hands of few (Meta/Google) disrupts modern communication and mass control. She should have included comparisons to Goebbels's media manipulation to the current use of Meta of Social Media to manipulate opinion while avoiding being responsible under false premises. She tangentially mentions how Meta and others are abusing just "information carriers" acts to avoid the consequences of their act, but doesn't give any opinion from the philosophers' point of view, just she acts as a journalist. That's the reason why I rated it 2 stars.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews