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

Privacy Rights and Data Brokers

Prior to reading this article, my knowledge on data brokers was very limited. I had of course experienced the occasional ads popping up on FaceBook of products I had searched for online, but the fact that I knew so little about this industry as a whole reflects, in my opinion, how unexposed the business really is no matter how "transparent" some may claim to be.
While this article made very clear the unethical aspects of the data brokering business, which I completely agree with, I was curious as to whether or not there may be any circumstances in which the violation of the basic human right of having autonomy over one's personal information and being "let alone" is worth the outcome (Fernback).
According to the FTC, "data broker products help to prevent fraud, improve product offerings, and deliver tailored advertisements to consumers" (FTC 2014). While such outcomes may be beneficial, I did not believe they were enough to justify the business as a whole. In fact, there seemed to be more negative outcomes associated with the brokering business as supported by this article. While I knew that the data I leave behind on the internet, especially social media, is collected and sold, I had no idea that other public records such as court filings and marriage and divorce records were sold too. While, though not at all justified, I can see how those public records can get into the hands of such data collecting businesses, I was shocked to learn that private medical information can be obtained and sold as well. An article by the Scientific American exposes IMS Health, one of the top dominating players in "the medical-data-trading industry" (Tanner). By collecting medical information on various patients, this company was able to harvest billions of dollars, and after winning a case taken to the U.S. Supreme Court on whether or not their business was partaking in privacy invasion, this practice continues even today (Tanner). While it is clear that such businesses are technically legal, I agree with Fernback's argument that the Fair Information Practices (FIPs) are not enough to regulate these brokering companies, and stricter regulation is needed.




(gif from: http://uproxx.com/tv/treat-yo-self-to-the-10-best-gifs-from-last-nights-parks-and-recreation/)


https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency-accountability-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-data-brokers-make-money-off-your-medical-records/

Eye in the Sky

Based solely off of the information that was presented in this podcast, I do not understand why there was so much strong opposition against Project Angel Fire. As I was listening to the opinions presented from the opposing side-- that the surveillance camera was an invasion of privacy and that it gave the government too much power which discarded autonomy over oneself, I could not help but to form the opinion that those people were extremely selfish and privileged. Additionally, it sounded as though most of the opposition was coming from the potential of the technology, not what it was actually doing: "McNutt...(is) exasperated when his system is criticized not for what it does, but for its potential" (Reel). To start off, I believe that the time limit of 90 days to keep the photos and the fact that faces cannot be seen is enough privacy for everyone. Because in the right hands, this technology will only be used to catch criminals, I did not understand why some people were so opposed when they were not even the main target of the cameras. Bluntly speaking, I thought that the people who valued their "privacy" (written in quotes because the government possesses far more personal information on individuals such as social security numbers and etc.) more than stopping thousands of crimes from happening, such as with the incident in Mexico, were not only selfish but extremely privileged because it sounded as though they had never been affected by crime enough to want to put a sure end to it. This is of course, however, only if this technology is properly monitored and restricted for government use. Another point that angered me from the opposing side was that with this technology, people will no longer be able to make personal connections with police officers as authorities will no longer be as needed on the streets since criminals can be caught with a few clicks. I thought that this was a ridiculous statement because the only reason people may desire to develop personal relationships with police officers is in order to feel protected and in good hands. Because these cameras operated by authorities can do a far better job at protecting citizens than individual authorities on the streets, it makes more sense that this technology will improve police-citizen relationships than act as a detriment. Additionally, I thought once again that those who valued having a police officer friend over catching a kidnapper before any child is hurt were very privileged as crimes seem to have little effect on them. While I understand that this is a controversial issue, I believe that with the correct regulations and restrictions on these cameras, such as only being able to use them for incidents that were reported and have enough need to be examined, they will do more good than harm.

Reel Article: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baltimore-secret-surveillance/

"What Surveillance Will Look Like in the Future"
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/even-bugs-will-be-bugged/501113/

Ethical Decision Making and the Internet

Behind a screen, it seems as though there are no limits to what Internet users can say or post no matter how harsh the statement can be. Additionally, regardless of the inappropriateness of any meme or tweet, there will always be sides to who is right and who is wrong due to the vast range of races, backgrounds, gender, and age of the people on the Internet. As certain statements can simply poke fun at a person or event, other statements may cause more harm than good. As a result, even disguised behind a vague username, it is imperative that all Internet users understand and practice ethical decision making.
Looking at one recent example, upon Donald Trump's inauguration, Saturday Night Live writer Katie Rich posted a tweet saying, "Barron Trump will be America's first homeschool shooter."



In response, Melissa Earnest, a Trump supporter, posted on Facebook a long defense of Barron Trump, claiming that regardless if you agree with the Trump campaign or not, Barron is still a growing child who is "off limits." Since then, Katie Rich has been suspended from SNL and Earnest's post has been shared over two million times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/arts/television/katie-rich-snl-suspended-barron-trump-tweet.html?_r=0).
In this incident, it seems as though Earnest took a rights approach in her ethical decision making process to defend Barron Trump. As the reading states, the rights-approach in ethics advocates the protection of "the ethical rights of those who are affected by the action," emphasizing that "all humans have a right to dignity" and should be treated the same (Making Choices: A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions).
While I do not support Trump, I, as well as thousands of other non-Trump supporters, have shared this common agreement that the attack on Barron Trump was unnecessary and harmful. While some may defend Rich claiming that her intention was to simply make people laugh, it is clear that many did not take it as so. In this situation, because Earnest is by no means directly related to the Trumps, I believe that her defense of Barron was supererogatory. This is because though she is not responsible for the well-being of Barron, her defense was still helpful and "right to do" (Making Choices: A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions). However, as a country looking out for each neighbor, I believe that it was everyone's ethically obligatory duty to support this defense of Barron and set the correct example for others to treat innocent children as they should be treated. More specifically, it is our responsibility as a nation to put an end to bullying and online harassment, and it would be wrong not to do it.
For this reason, it is important for Internet users to develop more sensitivity to what they should or should not post in order to prevent incidents such as this one from happening again.

Fallout and Moral Decision Making

As someone whose interaction with video games only goes as far as playing Unblock Me on her iPhone once in a while, this article provided me with an interesting perspective on a form of digital media I know very little about. However, despite the compelling arguments brought up regarding video games as "one of the most promising tools for teaching moral-decision making," I was still curious as to whether or not there was actual concrete, measurable evidence that this was so (Schulzke). While at various points Schulzke glosses over the player's potential train of thought when making moral or immoral decisions amidst the different scenarios the game provides, he fails to prove his main argument that this moral-decision making in the virtual world positively translates over to the real world. Nonetheless, I do not disagree with the points Schulzke presents and became convinced that by simply encountering situations in which one can act morally or immorally, one's sensitivity to "real-world moral dilemmas" may grow (Schulzke). This point relates to a study led by Dr. Matthew Grizzard on immorality in video games and the feeling of guilt. His study, "Being Bad in a Video Game Can Make Us More Morally Sensitive" found that players who acted immorally in video games were subject to the feeling of guilt, which made them more sensitive to moral dilemmas (Donovan). As a result of this guilt, Grizzard suggests that players will be more likely to partake in "pro-social behavior" (Donovan). Once again, while it is difficult to measure the extent of such pro-social behavior as well as how much the moral decision making process within video games plays into the process of making real-world decisions, the point still stands that nuanced video games such as Fallout 3 can be a powerful tool in teaching players what it means to act morally or immorally as well as the consequences of such decisions.








http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/06/037.html