Fake News

In response to this article, one critic, Anna Lauren Hoffman, a scholar at Berkeley University, argues that hiring a chief ethicist is not an adequate solution to Facebook's fake news problem (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2017/01/a_chief_ethics_officer_won_t_fix_facebook_s_problems.html). Her first point is that tech companies, including Facebook, already have educated people, capable of making ethical decisions. Thus, to make the suggestion that Facebook should hire a chief ethicist would make the implication that all ethical problems would be resolved with one new hire.
Hoffman brings up a good point. How much would a large company such as Facebook really benefit from one new hire when several intelligent and ethically literate people already compose much of the staff? Would it really make a difference? While the answer to that question may be difficult to measure, I do believe that hiring a chief ethicist is a good first step in resolving such a broad and difficult issue as this one.
Hoffman's second argument states that in a world where many companies sacrifice ethical values in order to achieve economic or political incentive, hiring a chief ethics officer is not enough to bring about such desired positive change. For example, researchers have discovered that Google had previously sacrificed their privacy policies in exchange for business interests. Thus, Hoffman argues that rather than "bringing in" ethics to a company, technology users should bring greater external pressure onto the companies to keep them accountable: "Without a major culture shift and increased external and regulatory pressure, the possibility that an ethics officer could spark widespread and necessary company reform remains limited" (Hoffman). 
While Hoffman's argument makes sense, it also implies that there is not enough regulation and external pressure already. It is simply not true that regulations do not exist to prevent these companies from following ethical principles and guidelines. While there is always room for improvement, I believe that the backlash Facebook faced after its fake news incident is reflective of the tight external pressures that already exists today.
Perhaps a combination of Hoffman and Heider's solutions can help bring about the change that we desire. Nonetheless, hiring a chief ethicist appears to be a good start. 

Dylann Roof and Google

Though this article brought up good points on biases that can occur on Google search, I disagreed with its entire suggestion or implication that Google search was responsible for Dylann Roof's hate crimes. To start off, Dylann Roof suffered a variety of mental illnesses such as "social anxiety disorder, mixed substance abuse disorder, schizoid personality disorder, depression by history, and a possible Autistic spectrum disorder," which this article completely failed to mention (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/dylann-roof-charleston-killing-mental.html?_r=0

). To completely ignore such vital information that played a big part in Roof's killing of nine black lives, suggesting that Google's search results were the catalyst, seems ridiculous. This is because no person in a stable state of mental health would commit such crimes just because he read about it on the Internet. Rather than blaming Google for showing Roof such results that influenced his behavior, the blame is entirely on Roof alone, possibly as well as his guardians who failed to take precautionary acts to ensure that their mentally ill child was not taking part in any dangerous acts in his unstable state of mind.

Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that Google may present bias in what it displays as primary suggestions. For example, during the 2016 presidential election, studies and reports showed that Google searches may have been highly biased, in favor of Hilary Clinton (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-12/google-bias). For example, when "hilary clinton cri-" was typed into the search, suggestions such as "hilary clinton crime reform" or "hilary clinton crisis" popped up, instead of "hilary clinton crimes" which were displayed in other search engines such as Bing or Yahoo. In response, Google defended itself claiming that the "autocomplete algorithm purposefully avoids suggesting offensive words in conjunction with any person's name," as a response to people's criticism that negative and offensive suggestions were displayed after typing in a name. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/06/10/google-says-search-isnt-biased-toward-hillary-clinton/85725014/). Still, studies have shown that Google search results may lean liberal on topics such as abortion, gun control, homosexuality, and politics (https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/family-relationships/googles-search-results-may-have-a-liberal-bias/vp-AAkCc0A). 

So what can be done about this? Should every search engine develop an algorithm that will suggest completely neutral, unbiased information each time? While this may be ideal, I do not consider this to be a realistic solution. Instead, I believe that when doing research or leaning about a new topic, everybody should learn to approach the subject from an unbiased standpoint, learning about all the different sides to it first, and then developing an opinion about it. While individuals must train and practice in doing so, which also may not be a realistic solution since every person using the internet may not have access to such training, in a world where there is so much biased information on (and off) the Internet, it is better to take responsibility for our educated actions instead of being lazy and forming our opinions on the first bit of information presented to us. 

Facebook Trolls

One large factor in Facebook trolling I believe that this article failed to mention is the large group of common people who support the trolls by feeding their insensitive comments or pages with "likes" or "lol's." While the trolls of Facebook are indeed primarily held responsible for their actions, I also believe that they would not be so popular and garner so much attention if nobody encouraged their behavior. As the article briefly mentions, this reflects a greater problem in our generation of internet users where many become desensitized and sociopathic behind a screen where nobody can judge them up front. In a way, it may be so that these silent supporters are more dangerous than the trolls themselves as it is more difficult to target individuals of a large group who click the "like" button on a troll comment rather than the sole writer of that comment himself. Like many digital media ethical issues, this presents a gray area of who is truly responsible for troll behavior: the trolling individual, or the masses who fuel and encourage his behavior.  Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly that RIP trolling is harmful and insensitive behavior that can cause serious emotional damage to family members and friends of the deceased.

While it is difficult to shut down every single troll account there is on Facebook, I do believe that, as the article mentions, it is necessary to monitor for trolling behavior and stop as much as possible. Along with not giving troll pages the attention they do not deserve in order to prevent them from getting bigger, it may help for Facebook to implement a stricter policy regarding who can make a Facebook account. One way would be for Facebook to require legitimate identification before creating a page or an account to ensure that the user is indeed a real person and who he says he is. Through this method, trolling may be significantly diminished.







http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160318-what-is-the-best-way-to-stop-internet-trolls


http://time.com/4457110/internet-trolls/

http://99u.com/articles/25151/dont-feed-the-haters-the-confessions-of-a-former-troll

A Rape in Cyberspace

Upon my first read of this article, bluntly speaking, I thought that LambdaMOO was stupid, its users were stupid, and that the victims describing their post traumatic stress about being virtually raped were overreacting since the entire world was a fake world constructed by a series of code that they could always exit whenever they wanted to. As a person who has never been into video games or anything of that matter, it is always hard for me to empathize with and take seriously anything that is not in the real world. However, when I came across Dibbell's point that "Rape can occur without any physical pain or damage," and that "it must be classed as a crime against the mind," I realized how close-minded I was and how large and serious of an issue this VR rape incident was. What helped me come to this realization was comparing this VR rape incident to videos on the internet or certain scenes in films. When I watch a film, I come to identify myself as the main character. If that main character is raped, I would feel mentally traumatized, even though nothing happened to my physical body. In the same way, because the users of these avatars created a digital character of themselves, it makes sense that they would feel traumatic stress if unwanted, unpredicted assault happened to them. 

This article brought up a good point regarding where to draw the line between real life and virtual life. While the users of these avatars who became victims of virtual rape were affected mentally in the real world, the only punishment the user of Mr. Bungle received was to be temporarily kicked out of the virtual world, which he was able to access again as Dr. Jest. I do not think that this was a fair punishment since the extent to which the victims suffered far outweighed the severity of Mr. Bungle's punishment. Because Mr. Bungle's actions had an effect in the real world, I believe that a fair solution to this incident would be to assign him a punishment in the real world as well. For example, taking a look at online bullying, even though the bullying is taking place in a digital world behind screens, bullies are still punished and convicted in real life. Similarly, even though Mr. Bungle's assaults took place in a virtual world, he should still have been convicted for mental/emotional abuse. Perhaps this was not the case because this incident occurred more than two decades ago, but I believe that this incident will lead creators of this technology in a safer direction. 



https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/26/virtual-reality-sexual-harassment-online-groping-quivr

http://www.springtideresources.org/resource/can-emotional-abuse-be-criminal-act

https://www.privacyrights.org/consumer-guides/online-harassment-cyberstalking

Robots

Upon reading this article, there were two questions that were mentioned that stuck out to me particularly: "Is there a danger with emotional attachments to robots?" as well as "Is there anything essential in human companionship and relationships that robots cannot replace?" The reason these two questions stood out to me was because I had never really considered the possibility that humans could become very attached to robots, and even potentially be okay with replacing human interaction with robot interaction. Perhaps this may be because I personally have not yet encountered any robots I could become attached to or depend on so heavily. However, remembering the movie Big Hero 6, I can see how emotional attachment to robots may become a possibility in the real world. In Big Hero 6, the main character Hiro is devastated when Tadashi, his older brother dies in a fire accident. The only thing that brings him out of his depression is Baymax, the health care robot invented by Tadashi to take care of Hiro. Throughout the movie, Baymax reminds us several times that he is "just a robot." However, through its interaction with Hiro and his friends, it is impossible to dismiss Baymax as just a piece of coded machinery, especially at the end when it sacrifices itself to save Hiro. Afterwards, Hiro is once again in despair upon losing what he considered to be his best friend. In the end, Hiro builds another body for Baymax in which he inserts the same software from the previous Baymax, and the movie ends on a happy note. 
To answer the first question regarding emotional attachment to robots, if robot technology advanced as far as creating robots similar to Baymax, I do think that there is some danger in becoming attached to them to that extent. While nobody is to blame for such emotional attachment, and just as human friends can also get sick, leave, or die as robots can be destroyed, I believe the pain experienced from the loss of a real life Baymax would be equally as devastating as losing a human friend or animal companion. Nonetheless, just as we may choose to adopt an old cat while aware of its inevitable death, I believe that because we would still be choosing to bring such a companion into our lives while knowing the risks and stakes, one could not justify emotional attachment to be a legitimate danger or reason to not produce/sell such robots. 
Regarding the second question of any essential qualities in human relationships that cannot be replaced by robots, I believe that no matter how human-like a robot may be in terms of emotional connection, the fact that I would know that all of its phrases, actions, and responses were all coded by someone else and not generated from the robot's innate being, would bother me to some extent. Thus, I do believe that no matter how advanced a robot is, I would not treat it that same as I would treat a human being. But once again, perhaps that is because we have not reached a point where robots possess their own sense of innate self yet. 



http://newatlas.com/big-hero-6/36122/


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2498688,00.asp

The Intersection of Trust and Privacy in the Sharing Economy- Uber

This article was interesting because it brought up a lot of points I was unaware of regarding sharing service platforms I regularly use. One point that I strongly agreed with was that the majority of adults are more inclined to use a sharing service platform once they receive a "positive recommendation or reassuring word-of-mouth" (Jerome and Dambrine). For myself personally, all of the sharing service platforms I use regularly such as Uber and Lyft have been a result of friends' recommendations and positive reviews. Because I trusted my friends, I was inclined to trust the services.
However, after reading this article, I realized how little I had actually known about the companies to which I was allowing access to my private information. For example, I was unaware of the fact that Uber allowed its drivers to also rate their passengers. While I do believe that a two-way rating system is beneficial to the company to prevent its employees from unpleasant encounters with certain clients, the fact that "negative reviews or ratings [can] pile up without clear notice or ability to respond" does not sit well with me due to the lack of transparency.
Another point that the article briefly mentioned was Uber's "God Mode" which I was also unaware of. Upon further research, I was shocked to learn that some drivers were using the trip data to "stalk former partners" or "track the trips of celebrities like Beyoncé" (Roberts and Kokalitcheva). In response to criticism, Uber fired some of its employees who had broken the company's privacy policies, and implemented stricter rules, limiting who has access to what information. I found this to be very ironic because while Uber claimed to value privacy upon the exposure of this particular incident, the CEO threatened to look into the personal lives of journalists who had been critical of the company's practices. Not only did this statement seem highly unprofessional, but it was contradictory of the company's value to earn the trust of its clients and the public. (On a side note, this statement also reminded me of Trump's statement to open up libel laws to make it "easier to sue news organizations for unfavorable coverage" which shows a disregard to the first amendment, possibly threatening the US rule of law (Ember).)
Overall, while I wish that the article had provided more detailed information and concrete examples of such controversies mentioned regarding Uber and Airbrb, it still brought up good points on privacy and company policy, suggesting ways in which sharing service platforms can improve by providing greater transparency.
I think it is also interesting to note that while I am now aware of this information, I will still be using Uber and Lyft because they still provide the services that I need.










http://fortune.com/2016/12/12/uber-privacy-memo/
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/business/media/can-libel-laws-be-changed-under-trump.html?_r=0
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/kris-constable/airbnb-privacy-security-id-jumio_b_4887509.html

Music Streaming and Ethics

When it comes to the topic of streaming music, I do agree that it is unfair that artists do not get paid as much as they would if all of their listeners paid for their record or single on iTunes. In the documentary about Napster called Downloaded released in 2013, various artists comment on the topic of downloading music without paying for it, some expressing their support for it, but most undermining the act. When Apple first launched its music streaming service called Apple Music in 2015, granting a three month free trial to listeners during which the artists would not be paid, pop sensation Taylor Swift spoke out in strong opposition, expressing her disappointment in the company and discouraging fans from using the service.

In other words, it is clear that up until just a few years ago, the majority of musical artists were not fond of music streaming services for its unethical nature.

However, in 2017, streaming music seems to the be the norm for both listeners and artists. In fact, after Apple responded to Taylor Swift's letter and decided to pay artists for those three months, Swift expressed her gratitude and even featured in an advertisement for the service that went viral: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK_zwl-lnmc

Although these streaming services still pay artists relatively the same amount as before, nowadays, there does not seem to be any strong opposition from neither artists nor listeners against its unethicality. Instead, artists seem to now be trying to adjust to these changes and doing the best with what they have (i.e. Swift supporting Apple Music). For this reason, though the points expressed in Richmond's article are true, I believe that they are a bit outdated considering the fact that it pushes music listeners to go back to purchasing albums and records which will, speaking realistically, not happen. So, instead of reverting to the past, I believe that we should now seek new ways to support artists through these streaming services such as by promoting artists through the apps or advertising the services so more listeners pay for subscriptions.



http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/01/media/taylor-swift-apple/

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-anxious-ease-of-apple-music