 Previously, we discussed the basic principles of deontology or duty ethics. Emmanuel Kant can be considered as the most famous deontologist, as he formulated his categorical imperative. Act only to that maximum whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction. Thus, in relation to your actions, you must ask yourself whether you would like the rule that guides your action to become a universal law which is valid for everyone. In this clip, we will elaborate on the implications of deontology as an ethical paradigm in communication. We will focus on transparency. Transparency is a hot topic in all fields of communication. It is related to a lot of communicative situations, such as government communications, how transparent should the government be, digital developments, what do these developments mean for transparency on the internet, and what are the implications for users and society, and communication research. As a researcher, is it a duty to always be honest about your intentions? As was explained in a previous clip, Kant stated that duties could not conflict, but modern philosophers have acknowledged the possibility of conflicting duties. This is also central to the issue of deontology and transparency. In its old meaning, transparency often meant allowing everything to be visible or simply availability. However, social media technologies, websites that contain large amounts of government or other sensitive information, and societal developments have given a new meaning to openness. There are numerous definitions of transparency or openness, but we will use the definition given by Oliver. Today's new transparency implies the increasing expectation of various stakeholders of active disclosure. In deontological terms, being transparent would thus imply that an actor, a journalist, company or government, must disclose information on their own initiative. If we take transparency in a sense of active disclosure as a duty, a universal standard, what implications does this have for communication practices? In theory, this could force governments and companies to be open about their data policies and strategies. Thus enabling citizens, pressure groups and other stakeholders to be better informed. However, it could also be a threat to their positions if there are no rules to protect information classified as vital. In addition, if a lot of policy information, data or other kinds of information is simply disclosed without further explanation or guidance, this could lead to overkill, if not drawing of the wrong conclusions based on it. This is, however, not only a logical way of thinking, as deontology takes the duty of being transparent as a starting point, and does not consider the possible consequences. Transparency can also be a difficult issue in advertising. Take product placement in television series as an example. The audience expects the show to be the result of creative efforts. However, if producers use particular products in the show as a result of a deal with certain companies, it also becomes a vehicle for selling products. This might be considered a form of deception. Let's discuss one last situation. More or less the same problem arises in the blogosphere when bloggers are paid to write favorably about products. To what extent can their blogs be considered as independent commentary, or is this deceit? And what role does payment play in this situation? Is there a moral obligation for the blogger to explain the nature of their relationship with the company? A deontological answer to these questions would say that transparency comes first. You have to be clear about your motives, not for any greater ends, but for the sake of transparency itself.