. Identify an ethical dilemma or ethically questionable situation from ONE of the following four YouTube videos: Video1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5M7ohdZ6qA Video2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0npm9cEJBWY Video3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBfJ07gfHyc Video4: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mugeCY3vbxo Please include the link to the video in the references list of your assignment. 2. Undertake further research about the ethical issues you identified in your chosen video to assist you in analysing and discussing it in your essay. 3. You are required to analyse the ethical dilemma you have identified above using the Doing Ethics Technique (DET). The word limit should be between 900-1000 words. Note: Headings, citations, references and any appendices do not count towards your word limit, but quotations do. At the start of the assignment indicates in brackets the word count of your assignment excluding those items mentioned above. 4. Include a Reference list at the end of your work, in the correct APA referencing style, corresponding to in-text citations. You must include at least TWO (2) quality academic references from different sources. Please note that these references are in addition to those provided to you through this subject (for example, you still must reference, the DET, Tavani, the Interact subject lecture notes etc BUT these references cannot be used as one of your two quality academic references from different sources). Only include references that have been cited in the body of your assignment and ones that support what you have presented in your assignment. Criteria Standards High Distinction (HD) Distinction (DI) Credit (CR) Pass (PS) Fail (FL) Analysis of the ethical dilemma using the Doing Ethics Technique (DET) (Value 70%) Answers all DET questions, lists all the facts, identifies all the non-ethical issues, lists all the stakeholders, identifies all the ethical issues, evaluates OTHER options can resolve them and selects the best option from these and the already given and justifies why this option is the best using supporting arguments based on the literature. Answers all DET questions, lists all the facts, identifies all the non-ethical issues, lists all the stakeholders, lists all the ethical issues and the OTHER options can resolve them and selects the best option from these and explains why this option is the best. Answers all DET questions, lists most of the facts, identifies most of the non-ethical issues, lists most of the stakeholders, lists most of the ethical issues and OTHER options can resolve them and selects the best option from these and makes an attempt to explain why this option is the best. Answers some of the DET questions, lists a few facts, identifies a few non-ethical issues, lists a few stakeholders, lists a few ethical issues and OTHER options can resolve them and selects the best option from these but without explaining why this option is the best. Answers a few DET questions but fails to list important facts, fails to identify relevant non-ethical issues, fails to list important stakeholders, fails to identify the ethical issues and evaluates the OTHER options can resolve them and does not select the best option or does not explain why the option selected is the best. Writing & structure (Value 20%) Language features and structures are used to convey meaning effectively, concisely, unambiguously, and in a tone appropriate to the audience and purpose with no spelling, grammatical, or punctuation errors. Well-developed skills in expression & presentation of ideas. Fluent writing style appropriate to assessment task/document type. Grammar & spelling accurate. Good skills in expression & clear presentation of ideas. Mostly fluent writing style appropriate to assessment task/document type. Grammar & spelling contains a few minor errors. The text contains frequent errors in spelling, grammar, word choice, and structure, lacks clarity, and is not concise, but the meaning is apparent to the reader with some effort. Rudimentary skills in expression & presentation of ideas. Not all material is relevant &/or is presented in a disorganised manner. Meaning apparent, but writing style not fluent or well organised. Grammar & spelling contains many errors. Referencing (Value 10%) Referencing is comprehensive, demonstrates academic integrity, and conforms exactly to APA style conventions. Very good referencing, including reference list and citations. High quality references. Good referencing, including reference list and citations. Good quality references. Referencing is comprehensive, mostly accurate according to APA style conventions, and demonstrates academic integrity. Some minor errors or omissions in style and formatting choices (e.g. italics, punctuation, etc) don’t impact on the transparency and traceability of the source, or demonstration of academic integrity. Sub-standard (or no) referencing. Poor quality (or no) references.Assessment 1 – Doing Ethics TechniqueTITLE An analysis of an ethical dilemma using the Doing Ethics Technique (DET) SUB TITLE NAME Stewart Armstrong STUDENT ID 11206102 EMAIL CONTACT stewart@thearmstrongs.net December 2015 ITC 506 | Assessment 1 Stewart ARMSTRONG, 11206102 ITC506 Assessment Item 1 | Session 3 2015 Page 2 of 7 Table of Contents 1. The Analysis …………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 2. The Reference List ………………………………………………………………………………………….7 Stewart ARMSTRONG, 11206102 ITC506 Assessment Item 1 | Session 3 2015 Page 3 of 7 1. The Analysis Alex Hern reported in the Guardian, Twitter had banned 31 accounts that archived deleted tweets of politicians and diplomats.(Hern, 2015a). This is a recent development following the blocking of the Politwoops service by Twitter for alleged breach of terms of service.(Hern, 2015b) What’s going on? Twitter, a social media microblogging site, has blocked certain accounts which were being used to preserving posts that were deleted from Twitter by the author of the post. The information being preserved was political content, being the tweets of politicians’, diplomats’ and embassies worldwide. What are the facts? Politwoops is a website dedicated to showing politician’s posts that they later regret (“Politwoops – All deleted tweets from politicians,” n.d.). Politwoops is run by the Open State Foundation which “promotes digital transparency by unlocking open data” (“Open State Foundation,” n.d.). In order to effectively prevent Politwoops from adding deleted tweets to its website Twitter needed to prevent access by the organisation to Twitter through banning the various user accounts that were being used by Politwoops such as @deletedbyMPs. What are the issues? The fundamental trigger for the issues is the collecting of tweets to redistribute the information after it has been deleted. This action is being done to intentionally thwart another user’s attempt to retract statements made. Among the issues are: Twitter’s right to control access to its services, including through the Twitter API (Hern, 2015b); the application of the Twitter terms of service; and broadly speaking, user privacy rights. All of these issues may be reduced to the single issue of Twitter’s ability to determine what is published and what is not, in the context of the specific information in question being political in nature. This prompts other questions such as: what other user accounts have not been banned in similar circumstances? Are all political persuasions and views being afforded the same protections? Who is affected? The stakeholders in respect of this matter are: Politwoops and its parent organisation, Open State Foundation, including those who are behind the Twitter accounts which have been banned, as well as the users of the Politwoops service. Twitter, its management, and decision makers are also stakeholders as well as all Stewart ARMSTRONG, 11206102 ITC506 Assessment Item 1 | Session 3 2015 Page 4 of 7 Twitter users. Twitter users include the sub-group of users who have an expectation that their tweets will be gone when deleted. The most significantly affected stakeholders are those who are invested, whether in terms of time, effort or money, in the user accounts being banned. Also, conversely, those who have deleted their tweets and expect other users not to be able to see the deleted information. However, those at Twitter who have made the decision to ban the Twitter accounts are extremely significant as they have determined how to balance the competing interests of all parties. Fundamentally, they have exercised editorial control akin to traditional media and press (Coe, 2015, p. 21). What is the ethical issue? As with the traditional press industry, there is an inherent conflict of interest arising from the power that comes with media ownership. Being able to determine what is published may come down to political bias, and commercial imperatives (Coe, 2015, p. 21). Even though the ethical issues of freedom of speech and privacy are significant, the most significant and perhaps opaque (Tavani, 2012, p. 27) ethical issue, is the power being wielded by Twitter with little more to regulate the outcome than Twitter’s own terms of service and developer agreement. The power Twitter holds appears to have gone unnoticed, or at least unchecked, because unlike traditional editorial content, Twitter are not the editors, but merely the suppliers of the medium for the content rather than being suppliers of content itself. The lawyers drafting the terms of service (Ammori, 2014, pp. 2272–2273) are making policy that should be the purview of elected governments. Twitter appears to be acting as a “private regulator of public discourse” (Busch & Shepherd, 2014, p. 301). The United Nations Human Rights Committee has said that the right to freedom of expression bring special duties and responsibilities, and as such should be subject to restrictions provided by law, to ensure the rights and reputations of others are protected and for the protection of public order, health and security (McGoldrick, 2013, p. 127). This is fundamentally an expression of rights based contract theory, balancing positive and negative rights (Tavani, 2012, p. 63). What are the implications of the ethical issue? Taken to the hypothetical extreme the implication of this issue could have a massive effect on society as a whole, influencing the outcomes of elections, and thereby effecting economic conditions and the daily lives of many individuals. In Stewart ARMSTRONG, 11206102 ITC506 Assessment Item 1 | Session 3 2015 Page 5 of 7 respect of individual stakeholders, the implications are just as significant, with privacy and free speech principles being implemented by companies in response to market demands rather than enforced by government regulators (Anonymous, 2011, p. 91). However, taken as an isolated event, the banning of 31 accounts by Twitter for an alleged breach of a terms of service agreement, has much smaller implications, only affecting the account users themselves. The trap with this ethical dilemma would be to only consider those immediately affected by the ban as opposed to the broader community. Accordingly a closer look at the pattern of decisions being made by Twitter is required to consider whether it’s policies favour its commercial stakeholders over its non-commercial ones as alleged by Busch and Shepherd (2014, p. 293). Twitter’s justification for the banning of the accounts is an example of the categorical imperative (Tavani, 2012, pp. 57–58) arguing that the ability to delete a tweet should be available to all, and that the actions of Politwoops meant some, though not all users were denied this ability. What can be done about it? To avoid this ethical dilemma, the policy vacuum needs to be filled by government. Policy should provide normative language around corporate citizenship and recognise that corporations like Twitter are a “public actor” as well as a private entity because of the power they weild (Busch & Shepherd, 2014, p. 302). With appropriate legislative oversight and a regulatory body, the professionals who have made the decision to ban the accounts would have a clear and transparent framework within which to make such a decision. What are the options? One option is to continue down the path of self-regulation, with each corporate entity dictating their own moral normative, which appears to have been what has occurred to fill the void of oversight from governments. A second option is industry based regulation where private companies come together to set standards to meet community expectations, such as the Global Network Initiative involving the code of conduct signed by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft in 2008 (Anonymous, 2011, pp. 91–92). A third option is for individual governments to seek to regulate corporate activity in the social media space creating oversight bodies, possibly funded by industry levies to ensure appropriate corporate citizenship and limits on power. Stewart ARMSTRONG, 11206102 ITC506 Assessment Item 1 | Session 3 2015 Page 6 of 7 The forth option is for national governments to come together and decide on international laws and a judicial system to address breaches. Any one of the last three options would provide a greater level of transparency around the decision making. The second option, whilst being an improvement over individual self-regulation, remains reliant on market forces to motivate change. Additionally, the second option would not necessarily provide independent oversight. Given that neither Twitter nor Facebook were signatories to the code of conduct that was part of the Global Network Initiative (Anonymous, 2011), it is difficult to see how industry based regulation would be effective. The forth option would require significant international cooperation and is unlikely to be a high enough priority to fund. Which option is best? The first option is a deontological based solution in that it relies on Twitter’s espoused views of free speech being upheld out of a sense of duty, and an ideal notion of corporate citizenship (Busch & Shepherd, 2014, pp. 304–305; Tavani, 2012, p. 67). Whilst the second option is more closely aligned with virtue based ethical theory requiring a homogony of standards that is difficult to achieve and likely explains the failure of the Global Network Initiative. The last two options are utilitarian and rights based as opposed to being deontological and virtue based. The third option is where governments seek to regulate the activities of social media companies. Governments need not do this through prescriptive legislation, rather they can provide oversight, ensuring that companies have developer agreements and terms of service agreements that meet minimum standards, and then regulate and audit the companies against their own standards. This option seems the most likely to succeed. Why the above option is the best? The third option is prefered because it provides normative elements (minimum standards) whilst letting the corporation develop individual policies and codes, and seeks to hold the company to those policies and codes. A strong component of the third option is the overt recognition that the morality around free speech and the right to remove information is not merely a private matter, but rather a matter of public significance (Busch & Shepherd, 2014, p. 303; Tavani, 2012, p. 47). Stewart ARMSTRONG, 11206102 ITC506 Assessment Item 1 | Session 3 2015 Page 7 of 7 2. The Reference List Ammori, M. (2014). FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: THE “NEW” NEW YORK TIMES: FREE SPEECH LAWYERING IN THE AGE OF GOOGLE AND TWITTER. Harvard Law Review, 127, 2259–2294. Anonymous. (2011). Facebook , Twitter absent from free speech pact creationists try new tactics. Newsletter on Interlectual Free Speech, 60(3), 91–93. Busch, T., & Shepherd, T. (2014). Doing well by doing good? Normative tensions underlying Twitter’s corporate social responsibility ethos. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 20(3), 293–315. http://ift.tt/2HC9ifI Coe, P. (2015). The social media paradox: an intersection with freedom of expression and the criminal law. Information & Communications Technology Law, 24(1), 16–40. http://ift.tt/2FTdr1R Hern, A. (2015a). Twitter blocks access to political transparency organisation Politwoops | Technology | The Guardian. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://ift.tt/2Dvcac2 Hern, A. (2015b). Twitter blocks Politwoops for breaching terms of service | Technology | The Guardian. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://ift.tt/2FVTreR McGoldrick, D. (2013). The Limits of Freedom of Expression on Facebook and Social Networking Sites: A UK Perspective. Human Rights Law Review, 13(1), 125–151. http://ift.tt/2Dvcbg6 Open State Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2015, from http://ift.tt/1Qbwxj4 Politwoops – All deleted tweets from politicians. (n.d.). Retrieved December 4, 2015, from http://ift.tt/YgWIek Tavani, H. T. (2012). Ethics and Technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing, 4th Edition (Fourth). Danvers: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
-
- Assignment status: Resolved by our Writing Team
Comments
Post a Comment