�鶹��

Available for over a year

Good morning. Yesterday evening, the Prime Minister met President Macron to discuss anti-terror measures, including how to stop the internet becoming a “safe space” for terrorists. There are proposals afoot that internet and social media companies could be fined for what appears on their sites. But, who is responsible for online content – the person posting the material or the platform used to display it. Many tech companies claim they do their best; and it’s an issue of sheer volume rather than lack of cooperation. In Hindu terms, culpability is never so clear-cut. Various Vedic texts discuss the concept of nimitta-matram – that all events – from the processes that unfold the universe to the daily lives of human beings – flow in a chain of causation. And with each step, there is what’s termed the “efficient cause”– that which allowed and facilitated that step to happen. So, according to Hinduism, although tech companies might claim they are not the publishers and abhor such extremist material, they aren’t absolved of all responsibility. Their policies play an unwitting role in the chain of causation. And, says the Gita, if we benefit from that, we also share in the karma for the results, whether deliberate or not. However, the internet is founded on what many consider to be important moral principles: privacy and freedom of thought and expression. Proposals for governments to break end-to-end encryption are understandably resisted as conflicting with those moral axioms. But, well-intentioned morality can be exploited. The Hindu text, Mahabharat tells the story of a brahmana priest who witnessed some travellers being pursued by a group of thieves. The travellers ran though the village and hid in one of the houses. When the thieves arrived, they interrogated the brahmana: had he seen the travellers? Maintaining his vow of truthfulness, the brahmana answered all their questions. The thieves then found the travellers and beat and robbed them. The text raises the question: are there special circumstances in which we should over-ride accepted moral values, and if so, what are the obligations? The Tamil poet, Valluvar concluded that moral principles should be applied providing they cause no harm. But, even in situations of extreme threat, any action that might contravene normal moral principles must pass a higher test: it must be both harmless and offer vital positive benefit. Only then, Valluvar claims: might such an action be considered moral in itself. This perhaps, highlights the dilemmas of balancing the incredible freedoms and benefits of the internet and modern communications with the intricate chain of responsibility; a chain that includes obligations on the individual users, the tech companies, and those we charge to police it all.