GIVENITHE EVIDENCE

Whose Golden Rule?

A study published September 1, 2010, in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion looked at the effect the golden rule's "do unto others" message has on attitudes toward homosexuals. Christian and Buddhist participants were primed with quotations espousing the golden rule, some attributed to Jesus and others to Buddha. The researchers found that the golden rule had no effect in raising people's level of compassion in their attitudes toward gays. Attitudes remained the same for Christians when the rule was associated with Jesus, however when the Golden Rule was attributed to Buddha, negativity towards gays and belief that homosexuality is a choice actually increased among Christians.

Net Neutrality, Google, and Internet Ethics

by Melissa Bollman

The authors of "'Do Unto Others': Effects of Priming the Golden Rule on Buddhists' and Christians' Attitudes Toward Gay People," conclude: "Our results suggest that although the golden rule has an important influence on believers, its message of compassion may produce more prejudice if it comes from an outgroup source compared to an ingroup source." In short, moral status trumps a universal message of compassion.

Scientia potentia est

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released the "U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey" on September 28, 2010, which found that atheists and agnostics know the most about world religions (including core teachings, history, and leading figures). Major religious groups' average of correct answers to 32 questions (after controlling for differing levels of education) were:

Atheist/Agnostic 20.9 20.5 Jewish 20.3 Mormon White evangelical Protestant 17.6 16.0 White Catholic 15.8 White mainline Protestant 15.2 Nothing in particular 13.4 Black Protestant 11.6 Hispanic Catholic

(Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists were included in the survey, but there weren't enough respondents to render relevant statistics for those groups)

Mormons and white evangelical Protestants showed the highest levels of knowledge about Christianity and the Bible. Jews and atheists/agnostics stood out for their knowledge of other world religions and also about the role of religion in public life, including a question about the U.S. Constitution. Among atheists/agnostics, 94 percent knew what an atheist was and 86 percent knew what it meant to be agnostic. For those who identify as "nothing in particular," 82 percent correctly defined atheism, while only 60 percent knew what agnosticism meant. 6 THE HUMANIST I November -December 2010

HIS PAST summer, Verizon and Google unveiled a joint legal framework for the consideration of Internet policy makers that grants Internet Service Providers (ISPs) greater control over the way consumers can access content in the digital world. The proposal would give ISPs the ability to introduce tiered pricing schemes for multiple "Internets" of diminishing quality and content, similar to how cable television companies already charge higher prices for packages offering more channels and better resolution. In addition, ISPs could let companies purchase the right to host their content on faster streams, which would give well-known sites like Google, Yahoo, and Facebook an even greater advantage when it comes to attracting visitors and racking up revenue from advertisers. All of this goes against the very concept of "net neutrality" that the overwhelming majority of Internet users support and wish to see remain in place. Net neutrality is the idea that all online content should be treated indiscriminately. A neutral or open Internet is the only type we've had so far, where all websitescommercial or non-commercial, corporate or ad-free, established or up-and-comingload at the same (relative) speed, and each user, after paying their ISP a flat fee, receives an allaccess pass to digital content. An open Internet ensures a level playing field for online entrepreneurs and users alike. President Obama voiced strong support for net neutrality back in 2007, and when he picked Julius Genachowski to head the Federal Communications Commission in 2009, the president indicated its preservation was a key priority Even so, the FCC hasn't set any rules on net neutrality. On September 1 of this year, the FCC issued a request for input from the public on regulating wireless networks and other problematic elements of the Google-Verizon proposal, but critics say it's time to act. In late September, House Democrats tried and failed to introduce a net neutrality bill, which reportedly didn't give the FCC power to impose rules to preserve an open Internet. Among its many drawbacks, a non-neutral Internet could likely spark a new kind of digital divide among users. The original digital divide refers to the gap between Interwww.americanhumanlst.org

net haves and have-nots. Often there are socioeconomic reasons why certain people lack Internet access, but these can and are being addressed by both governmental and non-profit organizations. However, if the neutrality of the Internet is in question, even providing everyone with a laptop and free Wi-Fi still wouldn't be enough to eliminate this gap in accessibility. There would still be some have-nots who couldn't afford access to the "complete" version of the Internet or who couldn't travel full-speed down the information superhighway. For their part, Google and Verizon pay lip service to the advocates of an open Internet, stating in their proposal that they would not allow ISPs to favor different types of lawful content "in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users." Hypothetically, this seems to prevent everything from prioritizing traffic to siphoning off portions of the web as premium content (though it does leave open the possibility of blocking access to illegal file sharing sites). This framework, however, also contains a massive loophole because these provisions don't apply to wireless broadband networks or any new Internet services, such as 3D, that telecom companies might develop in the future. It comes as no surprise that Verizon supports such a measureas an ISP, it has long opposed net neutrality as another obstacle in the way of profitsbut this was also drafted by Google, which up until now has voiced its support of a free and open Internet. Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin owe a certain amount of loyalty to net neutrality; without it, it's unlikely their start-up company would have risen from Internet obscurity to become the multi-billion dollar company it is today. They have said in the past that an unrestrictive Internet browsing experience is necessary in order for the next Googlethe next new big idea to take hold. But now Google seems to be turning its back on its previous commitment to net neutrality. As Andrew Orlowski from the online tech publication the Register points out, a neutral Internet is no longer in the company's best interest, which explains Google's willingness to so quickly abandon their old values. He argues that Google has been disguising its own selfish motives from the beginning, trying to appear altruistic as a way of branding itself as a morally conscientious, progressive company. Yet it's not as if Google has gotten by without any criticism or accusations until now. In 2008 the company was under fire for "edge-caching," that is, switching server locations to allow YouTube videos to load faster for specific target audiences. Others have previously called out Google for more or less complying with Chinese governmental policies of Internet censorship.

Another recent attack on Google comes from the Germans. Many are concerned that Google Map's Street View featurewhich provides high-quality panoramic images of private residential areasis a violation of their privacy. Even Germans who support the project were nevertheless angered by the under-handed tactics Google used to avoid public critique. As reported by Der Spiegel, in an effort to draw as little attention as possible Google quietly announced its Street View project during the summer, when most politicians, along with many other German citizens, travel abroad on vacation. This goes to show that Google, for all of its forwardthinking ideas and great work environment (Fortune ranks them fourth on their list of the "100 Best Companies to Work For"), is nevertheless a corporation doing what it can to get ahead. And while we can't really expect a business to deny its self-interest or ignore its bottom line, is it still too unreasonable to ask Google to uphold its own "Don't be evil" pledge and for the FCC to take some action in upholding net neutrality for the greater good? S\

Melissa Bollman recently completed an editorial internship at the American Humanist Association.

"...An intimate human drama." "A brilliant film...the actinj; is superb!" ".\n indie that delivers!"

THE AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION

And

TONTINE FILMS
Present

SLEEPING AND WAKING

(Jcl the DVD and Domile to the AHA! WHEN FACED WITH TERMINAL CANCER WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE? EAITH OR SCIENCE? Every DVD ordered with this form donates SX.OO to the American Humanist Association.

ORDER NOW!
No. of DVDs @ $28.00 ea., includes $3 S&H (MD residents add 6% sales tax). Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Please enclose your check/money order to: Tontine Films, Inc. Mail to: 9417 Sunfall Court, Columbia Maryland 21046. Ernail: herald square@yahoo.com

www.thehumanlst.org

November - December 2010 I THE HUMANIST

Copyright of Humanist is the property of American Humanist Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.