The assertion that internet service providers (ISPs) are required to allow all information to move unfettered across the internet at the same speed was a cornerstone of equal information access. When the Trump-era Federal Communications Commission changed legal requirements to remove this “net neutrality” (Adams & Harris, 2018), the principles of anti-censorship and preserving the public interest championed by the American Library Association Council’sCode of Ethics(2017) implementing internet-based digital services in libraries were damaged. At present, an ISP can legally block or significantly slow access to sites and services of its choosing, effectively acting as gatekeepers of information and allowing private companies to censor information resources (Adams & Harris, 2018). In the library environment, filtering, blocking, or slowing of internet access by the library’s ISP is clearly at odds with free access and equitable service (American Library Association Council, 2017). Additionally, Adams and Harris (2018) made it clear that even if a library’s own ISP does not engage in these profit-based and unequal practices, it can be virtually impossible to know if this slowing or blocking of particular sites is being done by an educational database vendor’s ISP, for example.
There are a few potential solutions to this situation that are untenable, but also some hope. Libraries could decide to no longer offer internet access, because it allows for content to be unjustly administered; this is not a practical stance. Libraries could shop around for ISPs that do not filter, block, or slow content, but as Adams & Harris (2018) have shown, this is nearly impossible, as ISPs do not have to disclose these activities. While libraries could fundraise or collaborate to purchase the best internet access, an ethical dilemma still presents itself. Implicit in this solution is the acceptance that better access to resources will only be available for those communities that can marshal sufficient funds. The best hope for libraries is educating the public and patrons about the loss of net neutrality’s unjust effects, combined with continued and pointed lobbying for the reinstating net neutrality across the board (or, perhaps, solely for educational institutions and public libraries).
Library relationships with publishers and information vendors undermine the ALA Council’sCode of Ethics(2017) in a way similar to ISPs’ actions as information transmitters. If it is unethical to slow or block access and offer better information transmission to those who are willing to pay more, there are also ethical concerns with restricting research and ebook access based on the ability to pay. The American Library Association Council’sCode of Ethics(2017) states that librarians seek to balance equity of access with the interests of rights holders. However, as a recent rift between the University of California and research journal publishing giant Elsevier illustrates so well (University of CaliforniaOffice of the President, 2020), in the digital age, publishers and information vendors can often very easily restrict access to research, journals, and ebooks with paywalls. While one could argue that limiting access to ebooks to only patrons of the library that has licensed them is protecting the interests of rights holders and justifies barring others from accessing information (Reinsfelder, 2014, p. 154), the same is not true of research produced by publicly-funded universities (University of CaliforniaOffice of the President, 2020). These licensing issues highlight the disparities in information access between libraries (and patrons) with sufficient funds and those without.
Libraries are better equipped to deal with the ethical issues around licensing of ebooks and journals than they are internet service provider issues. Illustrating the difference between copyright protections and overly restrictive licensing agreements does not need to be complicated. Combined library purchasing power does mean that boycotts of particular licensing companies may prove an effective solution (University of CaliforniaOffice of the President, 2020 & Enis, 2019), but only if public consumer purchasing power does not supplant library spending. Making the public aware of the different tiers of information available to them as a result of licensing agreements could be effective in catalyzing change. Library patrons already somewhat understand information services’ value and many profess to love their libraries. It is likely that if patrons understood the ways that licensing agreements can erode the ethical foundations on which libraries are built, they may show that love by demanding that the inequitable way digital information is acquired and made available change soon.
References
Adams, H. R., & Harris, C. (2018). Net neutrality: Why it matters to school librarians.Teacher Librarian, 45(4), 8-12.
American Library Association Council. (2017, May 19).Professional Ethics.American Library Association. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ala.org/tools/ethics.
Enis, M. (2019). Libraries respond to ebook embargo with boycotts.Library Journal,144(11), 9–10.
Reinsfelder, T. (2014). E-books and ethical dilemmas for the academic reference librarian.The Reference Librarian, 55, 151-162.
University of California Office of the President. (2019, February 28).UC terminates subscriptions with world’s largest scientific publisher in push for open access to publicly funded research.University of California Press Room. Retrieved fromhttps://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access-publicly
You should read this post then reply to it.
The reply posts should be composed with “value-added” information through providing with links to news/events, publications, or online video materials that can facilitate in the discussions and expand peers’ understandings on a discussion topic.
On my previous order you didn’t provide with links to news/events, publications, or online video materials that can facilitate in the discussions, I lost a lot of y grade.