Minds and Machines

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 1–7 | Cite as

The Civic Role of Online Service Providers

  • Mariarosaria TaddeoEmail author
Letter to the Editor


In a recent report,1 the UK Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) Committee focused on the role and responsibilities of online service providers (OSPs) with respect to the circulation of fake news and their impact on democratic processes, like public debate and political elections. The first recommendation offered in the report calls for “compulsory Code of Ethics for tech companies overseen by independent regulator”. The recommendation is sensible and should be adopted. Scholars working in the area of digital ethics have often stressed the need for a code of ethics shaping the conduct of OSPs (Taddeo and Floridi 2017). And an authority with teeth enforcing the code should be a measure welcome by the public sector, civil society, and OSPs themselves. On the one hand, the authority would ensure that OSPs respect essential values and principles safeguarding users’ rights and fundamental processes of our societies. On the other hand, an authority endorsing a code of...



  1. Black, J. (2001). Decentring regulation: understanding the role of regulation and self regulation in a “post-regulatory” world. Current Legal Problems, 54(1), 103–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broeders, D., & Taylor, L. (2017). Does great power come with great responsibility? The need to talk about corporate political responsibility. In M. Taddeo & L. Floridi (Eds.), The responsibilities of online service providers (Vol. 31, pp. 315–323). Cham: Springer. Scholar
  3. Calhoun, C. J. (Ed.). (2002). Dictionary of the social sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Cerf, V. G. (2011). First, do no harm. Philosophy and Technology, 24(4), 463–465. Scholar
  5. Coole, D., Frost, S., Bennett, J., Cheah, P., Orlie, M. A., & Grosz, E. (2010). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Durham: Duke University Press Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowls, J., & Floridi, L. (2018). Prolegomena to a white paper on an ethical framework for a good AI society. SSRN scholarly paper ID 3198732. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
  7. de Andrade, G., Nuno, N., Pawson, D., Muriello, D., Donahue, L., & Guadagno, J. (2018). Ethics and artificial intelligence: suicide prevention on facebook. Philosophy and Technology, 31(4), 669–684. Scholar
  8. Floridi, L. (2013). Ethics of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Floridi, L. (2014a). The fourth revolution, how the infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Floridi, L. (2014b). The onlife manifesto—Being human in a hyperconnected era. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Floridi, L. (2014c). Technoscience and ethics foresight. Philosophy and Technology, 27(4), 499–501. Scholar
  12. Floridi, L. (2016). Mature information societies—A matter of expectations. Philosophy and Technology, 29(1), 1–4. Scholar
  13. Floridi, L. (2017). Digital’s cleaving power and its consequences. Philosophy and Technology, 30(2), 123–129. Scholar
  14. Floridi, L. (2018). Soft ethics and the governance of the digital. Philosophy and Technology, 31(1), 1–8. Scholar
  15. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., et al. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. Scholar
  16. Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2016). What is data ethics? Philosophical Transactions A, 374, 20160360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Freeman, J. (1999). Private parties, public functions and the new administrative law. SSRN scholarly paper ID 165988. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
  18. Granka, L. A. (2010). The politics of search: A decade retrospective. The Information Society, 26(5), 364–374. Scholar
  19. Hasebrink, U. (2008). Comparing children’s online opportunities and risks across Europe: Cross-national comparisons for EU kids online: [European research on cultural, contextual and risk issues in children’s safe use of the internet and new media (2006–2009)]. London: EU Kids Online.
  20. Hinman, L. (2005). Esse est indicato in Google: Ethical and political issues in search engines. International Review of Information Ethics, 3(6), 19–25.Google Scholar
  21. Introna, L. D., & Nissenbaum, H. (2006). Shaping the web: Why the politics of search engines matters. SSRN scholarly paper ID 222009. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.
  22. Laidlaw, E. (2008). Private power, public interest: An examination of search engine accountability. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 17(1), 113–145. Scholar
  23. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McQuail, D. (1992). Media performance: Mass communication and the public interest. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  25. Metoyer-Duran, C. (1993). Information gatekeepers. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST), 28, 111–150.Google Scholar
  26. Pariser, E. (2012). The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Price, M. E. (2002). Media and sovereignty: The global information revolution and its challenge to state power. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shapiro, A. L. (2000). The control revolution: How the internet is putting individuals in charge and changing the world we know (2nd ed.). New York: PublicAffairs.Google Scholar
  29. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). With a new afterword by the author edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Taddeo, M. (2012a). Information warfare: A philosophical perspective. Philosophy and Technology, 25(1), 105–120.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taddeo, M. (2012b). An analysis for a just cyber warfare. In 2012 4th international conference on cyber conflict (CYCON 2012) (pp. 1–10).Google Scholar
  32. Taddeo, M. (2013). Cyber security and individual rights, striking the right balance. Philosophy and Technology, 26(4), 353–356. Scholar
  33. Taddeo, M. (2014). The struggle between liberties and authorities in the information age. Science and Engineering Ethics. Scholar
  34. Taddeo, M. (2017). Trusting digital technologies correctly. Minds and Machines, 27(4), 565–568. Scholar
  35. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2015). The debate on the moral responsibilities of online service providers. Science and Engineering Ethics. Scholar
  36. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (Eds.). (2017). The responsibilities of online service providers. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018a). Regulate artificial intelligence to avert cyber arms race. Nature, 556(7701), 296–298. Scholar
  38. Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018b). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751–752. Scholar
  39. Zhang, C., Sun, J., Zhu, X., & Fang, Y. (2010). Privacy and security for online social networks: Challenges and opportunities. IEEE Network, 24(4), 13–18. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oxford Internet InstituteUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Alan Turing InstituteLondonUK

Personalised recommendations