Skip navigation

A theme I found myself thinking back upon through out this week’s readings concerning hacking and the lecture about revenge porn, was the idea of the function of morality, and how it is both central and tangential to the inner-workings of each concept we explored. I feel as though there is a pull towards a certain “moral duty” of either hackers or spiteful ex-boyfriends to be the “morality police” and determine what some people do as wrong and how they are the ones that then must fix it. Upon further reflection, I feel as though the seemingly democratic structure of the Internet allows for this autonomy to take the actions that ones finds justified. What I find interesting about these Internet hackers and activists taking power into their own hands to correct what seems unjust always seemed hypocritical and contradictory to me. I thought there was a direct contradiction in people criticizing a system or systems for being unjust for entrenching their beliefs onto others, when, to some degree they do the same. In the same vein, the revenge hackers seek revenge against people who they find have done something wrong, and they push their idea of what is right.

I find this as an interesting take of how people approach morality.. I find it brought up the question of, when there are no systems or institutions such as governments which dictate what is morally okay (due to lack of legal laws written about the internet), does the internet present us with a form of anarchy? Is the way that people act on the Internet examples of what humans do when they are not given limits or constraints? Sites like Anonymous and IsAnyoneUp make me question human nature to some extent, and peoples’ true abilities to inflict pain on others when they do not see an immediate consequence.