An ethical framework for the digital afterlife industry

Abstract

The web is increasingly inhabited by the remains of its departed users, a phenomenon that has given rise to a burgeoning digital afterlife industry. This industry requires a framework for dealing with its ethical implications. We argue that the regulatory conventions guiding archaeological exhibitions could provide the basis for such a framework. The number of "dead" profiles on Facebook has been estimated to increase at a rate of roughly 1.7 million per year, only in the US 1. Depending on the future rate of growth in Facebook users, the dead may even outnumber the living before the end of the century. Meanwhile, technological development has enhanced how we "socialise" with the dead online. Firms such as Eterni.me and Replica now offer consumers online chat bots, based on one's digital footprint, which continue to live on after users die, enabling the bereaved to "stay in touch" with the deceased. This new phenomenon has opened up opportunities for commercial enterprises to monetise the digital afterlife of Internet users. As a consequence the economic interests of these firms are increasingly shaping the presence of the online dead. 2 The sociological and legally oriented literature has mainly focused on social practices of grief on social media. This debate has largely focused on the role of technological development in shaping modern practices of online grieving, and has, with few exceptions 3 , left the economic and ethical aspects of the phenomenon mostly unexplored. The fact that the online dead are generally mediated by commercial platforms therefore tends to be neglected. This is problematic, considering the recent growth in the industry. There is a plethora of startups now investing in death online, and tech giants are also beginning to join the trend. Facebook, with its two billion (living) users, has made significant advances in supporting users who wish to mourn and stay in touch with the profiles of the departed. Likewise, Google has recently launched an "inactive account manager" to deal with the inevitable deaths of its users, thereby following in the footsteps of numerous digital afterlife start-ups. Although they differ in their respective business models, these enterprises may all be placed under the same umbrella term, the Digital Afterlife Industry (DAI) 2. Digital remains as estate Digital remains as preserved memory Digital remains as communication Digital remains as artificial agent Information Management Services Online Memorial Services Posthumous Messaging Services Recreation Services

Ethical Medical Data Donation: A Pressing Issue

“…These included suggestions for next steps, including the extension of data donation to corporate data by means of data philanthropy schemes, and the addition of other data sources, such as health-related data collected by medical or lifestyle wearable devices. The latter raises important ethical issues beyond the scope of the present volume, such as the question of how to treat the digital remains of the dead (Öhman and Floridi 2018). Finally, the ethical code for PMDD proposed in this volume could eventually be extended to include donations made by living individuals, but for the reasons explained in the following chapters, we considered it ethically preferable to begin with deceased donations.…”

Burying the Dead (Users): A Life of Data Within Limits

“…This paper poses such responses to this problem as growth-oriented and unsustainable in the long-term, using the LIMITS model to show how the maintenance of digital remains does not always contribute to well-being or allow for flourishing. Services for digital remains that are most in-line with the LIMITS model are those that Öhman & Floridi (2018) term "information management services" which ensuring that "assets are passed on (or destroyed) on death" (pp. 318), rather than being given new life, or in other cases even sustained.…”

Futures of digital death: Past, present and charting emerging research agenda

“…Control and privacy of one's personal data such as emails (Harbinja, this issue) is also a reflection of respect for their autonomy (Sanches et al, 2019). € Ohman and Floridi (2018) advanced the ethical framing of digital remains as the "informational corpse of the deceased" arguing for the need for frameworks to regulate the commercial use of such remains aligned to the value of human dignity and prevention of commercial exploitation. However, the examples above are limited and more interdisciplinary research is needed in this particularly important area.…”