Digital behaviour
This competence was originally known as ‘netiquette’, and we will also be focusing on netiquette for the most part in this module; however, we would like to pause to consider the term ‘digital behaviour’, which is the new term used to describe this competence and which offers some interesting emphases and perspectives that are worth considering.
Firstly, digital behaviour does not concern only people, but all ‘inforgs’ – given that even ordinary users can now create their own AI agents or customise GenAI tools, this dimension is entering the field of information interactions in the digital environment: how to set boundaries and determine the ways in which we interact with these digital tools.
On the other hand – how should one actually communicate with GenAI tools? Is it appropriate to greet them, thank them or make requests? The answer is not clear-cut, as there is a clash here between the technological perspective – which argues that such information is superfluous, does nothing to refine the prompt or the interaction, wastes tokens and is, in fact, an inefficient and illogical way of interacting – and the psychological perspective. On the other hand, there is the psychological perspective, which points out that natural language interaction is a two-way process, and that the absence of polite forms can have negative consequences for the AI itself.
Digital behaviour does not merely encompass elements of politeness, but demonstrates this competence alongside others, raising questions such as:
- For what purposes is it ethically acceptable to use GenAI?
- What impact does a specific use of GenAI have on us?
- What is our digital wellbeing, and how does it manifest in the way we act and think?
It is clear that this competence is not in isolation and that it serves a function of moderation and refinement in our behaviour. This is an important dimension – technology can (and often does) develop faster than we are able to respond to it. The aim of this competence is to reflect on digital anthropology in a way that ensures individuals will not (in the near future) have to be ashamed of their behaviour, nor will they have to invent stories about a shared phone, delete posts or claim that someone else wrote them. All of this, in fact, falls within this broader framework of digital behaviour.
Netiquette is a label in cyberspace. However, it must be consistently distinguished from information ethics - etiquette does not examine or reflect what is right, wanted, or good. Its goal is to codify social rituals so that people can easily communicate and interact with each other. Just as everyone knows, a fish knife from an appetizer knife in a restaurant (or knows when it is appropriate to let a lady through the door or when she should take off her hat), so it would be suitable for everyone to have an idea of how to behave in cyberspace.
In 1995, the RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines appeared, which codified netiquette in some way. RFC documents are standards that define network standards. In other words, competence in polite behavior in the online environment is essential to ensure effective communication as the packet header description in IPv6. Today, the document already looks dysfunctional and outdated in many ways because it could not reflect topics that appear, for example, in the context of social networks. The primary communication medium in 1995 was e-mail, either in bulk (i.e. e-mail conferences) or individually focused. The document focused on the following areas: “one-to-one" communication, “one-to-many" communication, and information services.
The mentioned document is essential in that it consistently separates the label and the topic of safety. Although the two are closely related, they need to be reflected on and described separately. For example, we are usually used to using various technical tools to ensure safety. The question is whether it would be acceptable, for instance, for artificial intelligence to analyze user communication and alert the competent body to conduct that is not in line with netiquette.
The topic of netiquette itself is vast, so you can find an infinite number of more or less successful codes that try to work with it in some way. In principle, however, it is possible to see two crucial sources of netiquette, which appear in most documents. The first is the principle that “on the other side sits a person", i.e. an emphasis on the general principles of courtesy, respect, and solidarity with the other as a person.
The subject of discussion is how netiquette should reflect the existence of chatbots, i.e. the fact that on the other side of the communication, it does not have to be a living recipient but a machine. The discussion has a dimension of how the algorithm should behave towards a person, but the other side can also be seen. How should a person behave towards a machine that (mostly) learns from it? One cannot forget the dialogue system from Microsoft, which learned from users - in a short time, it became an object with Nazi and racist attitudes because it was able to very quickly and accurately obtain the narrative and value framework of those who conversed with it. We are thus faced with the question of whether such an interaction is acceptable and responsible.
The second rule, nicely formulated by Pavel Satrapa, is “Let's be conservative in publishing and liberal in consuming news." It refers to the fact that one must know that their statement might hit someone or hurt that may not be understood or perceived sufficiently integrally. Simultaneously there is an awareness that they are in a similar situation as the recipient of the messages. So this is a rule of moderation.
Without wishing to prefer any of the netiquette codes, let us briefly point out Netiquette, authored by Virginia Shea. In general, it can be said that a problem that is often associated with similar sets of rules is a certain vagueness and ambiguity of interpretation. It is good to keep in mind that such regulations exist, but at the same time, we should not overestimate their applicability in practice.
1. Remember a person
This principle summarizes what we have cited as specific sources of netiquette. A partner's knowledge in a discussion or other interaction is (or maybe) a person is critical. It shows why the rules should be binding, and one should follow them. At the same time, we believe that it is also possible to incorporate certain ethical principles or a paradigmatic view into this point, which will model a particular individual's behavior.
2. Stick to the same standards of behavior that you use in real life
This rule is at first glance consistent with the first and logical. One should be just as polite or truthful. But it contains two significant difficulties. The first is that the cyber environment is authentic, and real-life takes place in it. Naturalistically, they capture suicides as a result of cyberbullying. The second difficulty is that there are situations for which one cannot be prepared from the “offline world". So this rule gives no clue as to how to share content on social networks or to write a blog.
3. You should know where you are
This rule has two dimensions. The first is the relationship to the context - many disputes or frictions can arise because one does not know the cultural climate of the community. A certain communication inculturation is, therefore, a prerequisite for polite and functional behavior. The second dimension is somewhat pragmatic - who will see my contribution or other work? How might it be treated?
4. Respect other people's time
This is a topic already mentioned in cooperation - blurring the line between work and leisure is a general fact, but it should not mean that we do not respect the time of others. Online communication can be tempting in that asking something of someone can be easier and faster than finding some information independently.
5. Build a good online reputation
An excellent online reputation is a relatively broad and difficult-to-grasp concept, but perhaps it is possible to gain at least a few practical particularities from it. First, online and offline identities intersect and intertwine. However, it can be reasonably assumed that people will know a person purely digitally. It is a challenge for every person to think about their online reputation (identity) and what they can do for themselves.
6. Share expertise
It is one of the interesting points, which could indeed find application in standard etiquette. Promoting the growth of knowledge and truth can be an ethical guide. The online environment is associated with another key thing - namely, checking whether the information disseminated is not hoax, fake news, or similarly problematic messages.
7. Help keep flame wars under control
If possible, one should try not to engage in quarrels that make no practical sense. They lose time, energy, good relationships and do nothing good. Cyberspace can be (for many reasons) sensitive to flame wars. Therefore, it is appropriate if a person knows about this fact when moving in cyberspace and tries to work with it in a certain way, i.e., acting as a particular mediator.
8. Respect other people's privacy
Privacy has become the primary currency in the online space, which we are used to paying for free services. Some even claim that confidentiality no longer exists. However, one person should pay maximum attention to another person's privacy when communicating online, especially in the possible publication of information entrusted to him with a sense of confidentiality and intimacy.
9. Do not abuse your power
The whole tradition of critical theory and discourse analysis relates to the reflection of power. This can manifest itself differently in the online environment. It often has an enormous impact on a particular community, for example, in the number of followers. It is appropriate to treat it in such a way that, in the words of Jan Patočka, everything is for the benefit of the municipality.
10. Be conciliatory to the mistakes of others
The last point returns to the above-mentioned categorical imperative of Pavel Satrap. In general, the online environment can be problematic for several reasons. First of all, it is their permanent attachment, login, and easy availability. Also, not seeing another can lead to a less empathic response. It is also necessary to emphasize that this environment is always associated with a certain amount of information noise, making it significantly challenging to understand correctly.
