Обзор условий межличностного доверия в Интернете
Журнал «KANT: Social Sciences & Humanities Series» №2(10) 2022 [стр. 36-66]
DOI: 10.24923/2305-8757.2022-10.3
Ключевые слова: доксастические теории доверия; аффективные теории доверия; онлайн-доверие.
Цель исследования состоит в том, чтобы лучше квалифицировать проблему онлайн-доверия. Проблема онлайн-доверия заключается в оценке того, имеет ли онлайн-среда надлежащий формат, обеспечивающий доверие. В этой статье делается попытка лучше определить эту проблему, и в итоге продемонстрировать, что нет однозначного ответа, а есть только условные соображения, которые зависят от предполагаемой концепции доверия и функций, включенных в саму среду. На самом деле, основная проблема, связанная с традиционными дебатами о доверии в Интернете, заключается в том, что эти дебаты сосредоточены на конкретных определениях доверия и конкретной онлайн-среде. Обычно предполагается определение доверия, а затем условия окружающей среды, необходимые для доверия, оцениваются в соответствии с таким конкретным определением. Однако этот способ действия не понимает, что доверие - это богатое понятие, имеющее множество значений и что до сих пор нет согласия в отношении того, какое значение следует принимать за правильное. Более того, полностью игнорируется тот факт, что онлайн-среды постоянно развиваются и в них могут внедряться новые конструктивные особенности. В этой статье богатство философских дискуссий о доверии переносится на анализ онлайн-доверия. Сначала я привожу набор условий, которые зависят от определения доверия, которое можно предположить, а затем обсуждаю эти условия в отношении дизайна онлайн-среды, чтобы определить, могут ли они обеспечить (и при каких обстоятельствах) доверие.
Литература:
Alchourron, C., Gardenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510-530.
Aldini, A., Curzi, G., Graziani, P., & Tagliaferri, M. (2021). Trust evidence logic. In Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty (pp. 575-589).
Aldini, A., & Tagliaferri, M. (2020a). Logics to reason formally about trust computation and manipulation. In A. Saracino & P. Mori (Eds.), Emerging technologies for authorization and authentication (ETAA2019) (pp. 1-15). LNCS 11967.
Aldini, A., & Tagliaferri, M. (2020b). Logics to reason formally about trust computation and manipulation. In Emerging technologies for authorization and authentication (pp. 1-15).
Aldini, A., & Tagliaferri, M. (2020c). A trust logic for the varieties of trust. In Software engineering and formal methods (pp. 119-136).
Alonso, F. M. (2016). Reasons for reliance. Ethics, 126, 311-338.
Alonso, F. M. (2014). What is reliance. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 44(2), 163-183.
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Sharif, A., Bonnefon, J. F., & Rahwan, I. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563, 59-64.
Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231-260.
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Brengman, M., & Karimov, F. P. (2012). The efect of web communities on consumers' initial trust in B2C e-commerce websites. Management Research Review, 35(9), 791-817.
Calvo, R. A., D'Mello, S. K., Gratch, J., & Kappas, A. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of affective computing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carter, J. A., & Simion, M. (2021). The ethics and epistemology of trust. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved January 2021, from https://iep.utm.edu/trust/.
Cogley, Z. (2012). Trust and the trickster problem. Analytic Philosophy, 53(1), 30-47.
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 737-758.
Crick, F. (1989). The recent excitement about neural networks. Nature, 337, 129-132.
Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 49-72). Oxford: Blackwell.
Domenicucci, J., & Holton, R. (2017). Trust as a two-place relation. In P. Faulkner & T. Simpson (Eds.), The philosophy of trust (pp. 149-160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ess, C., & Thorseth, M. (2011). Trust and virtual worlds. New York: Peter Lang.
Evans, D. (2011). The Internet of Things: How the next evolution of the Internet is changing everything. CISCO white paper.
Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2011). The case for e-trust. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(1), 1-3. Reviewing the Case of Online Interpersonal Trust
Frost-Arnold, K. (2014). The cognitive attitude of rational trust. Synthese, 191(9), 1957-1974.
Gambetta, D. (Ed.). (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Grabner-Kr?uter, S., & Schratt-Bitter, S. (2013). Trust in online social networks: A multifaceted perspective. Forum for Social Economics, 44(1), 48-68.
Greene, J., Rossi, F., Tasioulas, J., Brent-Venable, K., & Williams, B. (2016). Embedding ethical principles in collective decision support systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artifcial intelligence, 30(1).
Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K., & Wolf, M. J. (2010). Toward a model of trust and e-trust processes using
object-oriented methodologies. Ethicomp 2010 proceedings.
Hakli, R., & Mаkelа, P. (2019). Moral responsibility of robots and hybrid agents. The Monist, 102(2), 259-275.
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hinchman, E. S. (2017). On the risks of resting assured: An assurance theory of trust. In P. Faulkner, & T. Simpson (Eds.), The philosophy of trust (pp. 51-69).
Hurley, R. F., Gillespie, N., Ferrin, D. F., & Dietz, G. (2013). Designing trustworthy organizations. Sloan Management Review, 54(4), 75-82.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815.
Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an afective attitude. Ethics, 107, 4-25.
Jоsang, A. (2007). Trust and reputation systems. In A. Aldini, & R. Gorrieri (Eds.), Foundations of security analysis and design IV (pp. 209-245).
Kamvar, S. D., Schlosser, M. T., & Molina, H. G. (2003). The eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on world wide wide (pp. 640-651).
Kelp, C., & Simion, M. (2020). What is trustworthiness? Manuscript.
Keren, A. (2020). Trust and belief. In J. Simon (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of trust and philosophy. London: Taylor and Francis Group.
Keymolen, E. (2016). Trust on the line: A philosophical exploration of trust in the networked era. Oisterwijk: Wolf Publishers.
Lahno, B. (2017). Trust and collective agency. In P. Faulkner, & T. Simpson (Eds.), The philosophy of trust (pp. 129-148).
Alchourron, C., Gardenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510-530.
Aldini, A., Curzi, G., Graziani, P., & Tagliaferri, M. (2021). Trust evidence logic. In Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty (pp. 575-589).
Aldini, A., & Tagliaferri, M. (2020a). Logics to reason formally about trust computation and manipulation. In A. Saracino & P. Mori (Eds.), Emerging technologies for authorization and authentication (ETAA2019) (pp. 1-15). LNCS 11967.
Aldini, A., & Tagliaferri, M. (2020b). Logics to reason formally about trust computation and manipulation. In Emerging technologies for authorization and authentication (pp. 1-15).
Aldini, A., & Tagliaferri, M. (2020c). A trust logic for the varieties of trust. In Software engineering and formal methods (pp. 119-136).
Alonso, F. M. (2016). Reasons for reliance. Ethics, 126, 311-338.
Alonso, F. M. (2014). What is reliance. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 44(2), 163-183.
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Sharif, A., Bonnefon, J. F., & Rahwan, I. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563, 59-64.
Baier, A. (1986). Trust and antitrust. Ethics, 96(2), 231-260.
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Brengman, M., & Karimov, F. P. (2012). The efect of web communities on consumers' initial trust in B2C e-commerce websites. Management Research Review, 35(9), 791-817.
Calvo, R. A., D'Mello, S. K., Gratch, J., & Kappas, A. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford handbook of affective computing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carter, J. A., & Simion, M. (2021). The ethics and epistemology of trust. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved January 2021, from https://iep.utm.edu/trust/.
Cogley, Z. (2012). Trust and the trickster problem. Analytic Philosophy, 53(1), 30-47.
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003). On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58, 737-758.
Crick, F. (1989). The recent excitement about neural networks. Nature, 337, 129-132.
Dasgupta, P. (1988). Trust as a commodity. In D. Gambetta (Ed.), Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations (pp. 49-72). Oxford: Blackwell.
Domenicucci, J., & Holton, R. (2017). Trust as a two-place relation. In P. Faulkner & T. Simpson (Eds.), The philosophy of trust (pp. 149-160). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ess, C., & Thorseth, M. (2011). Trust and virtual worlds. New York: Peter Lang.
Evans, D. (2011). The Internet of Things: How the next evolution of the Internet is changing everything. CISCO white paper.
Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2011). The case for e-trust. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(1), 1-3. Reviewing the Case of Online Interpersonal Trust
Frost-Arnold, K. (2014). The cognitive attitude of rational trust. Synthese, 191(9), 1957-1974.
Gambetta, D. (Ed.). (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Grabner-Kr?uter, S., & Schratt-Bitter, S. (2013). Trust in online social networks: A multifaceted perspective. Forum for Social Economics, 44(1), 48-68.
Greene, J., Rossi, F., Tasioulas, J., Brent-Venable, K., & Williams, B. (2016). Embedding ethical principles in collective decision support systems. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artifcial intelligence, 30(1).
Grodzinsky, F. S., Miller, K., & Wolf, M. J. (2010). Toward a model of trust and e-trust processes using
object-oriented methodologies. Ethicomp 2010 proceedings.
Hakli, R., & Mаkelа, P. (2019). Moral responsibility of robots and hybrid agents. The Monist, 102(2), 259-275.
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and trustworthiness. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hinchman, E. S. (2017). On the risks of resting assured: An assurance theory of trust. In P. Faulkner, & T. Simpson (Eds.), The philosophy of trust (pp. 51-69).
Hurley, R. F., Gillespie, N., Ferrin, D. F., & Dietz, G. (2013). Designing trustworthy organizations. Sloan Management Review, 54(4), 75-82.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791-815.
Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an afective attitude. Ethics, 107, 4-25.
Jоsang, A. (2007). Trust and reputation systems. In A. Aldini, & R. Gorrieri (Eds.), Foundations of security analysis and design IV (pp. 209-245).
Kamvar, S. D., Schlosser, M. T., & Molina, H. G. (2003). The eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks. In Proceedings of the 12th international conference on world wide wide (pp. 640-651).
Kelp, C., & Simion, M. (2020). What is trustworthiness? Manuscript.
Keren, A. (2020). Trust and belief. In J. Simon (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of trust and philosophy. London: Taylor and Francis Group.
Keymolen, E. (2016). Trust on the line: A philosophical exploration of trust in the networked era. Oisterwijk: Wolf Publishers.
Lahno, B. (2017). Trust and collective agency. In P. Faulkner, & T. Simpson (Eds.), The philosophy of trust (pp. 129-148).
Reviewing the Case of Online Interpersonal Trust
Keywords: doxastic theories of trust; affective theories of trust; online trust.
The purpose of the study is to better qualify the problem of online trust. The problem of online trust is that of evaluating whether online environments have the proper design to enable trust. This paper tries to better qualify this problem by showing that there is no unique answer, but only conditional considerations that depend on the conception of trust assumed and the features that are included in the environments themselves. In fact, the major issue concerning traditional debates surrounding online trust is that those debates focus on specifc defnitions of trust and specifc online environments. Ordinarily, a defnition of trust is assumed and then environmental conditions necessary for trust are evaluated with respect to such specifc defnition. However, this modus operandi fails to appreciate that trust is a rich concept, with a multitude of meanings and that there is still no strict consensus on which meaning shall be taken as the proper one. Moreover, the fact that online environments are constantly evolving and that new design features might be implemented in them is completely ignored. In this paper, the richness of the philosophical discussions about trust is brought into the analysis of online trust. I frst provide a set of conditions that depend on the defnition of trust that can be assumed and then discuss those conditions with respect to the design of online environments in order to determine whether they can enable (and under which circumstances) trust.
Tagliaferri, M. Reviewing the Case of Online Interpersonal Trust. Found Sci (2022).
Tagliaferri, M. Reviewing the Case of Online Interpersonal Trust. Found Sci (2022).