When I was
in first grade, I had a teacher who always told me that everything has a good and
a bad use. For example, if we ever doodled on our desks, she would tell us that
that was an example of a “bad use” for a pencil. I remember being annoyed and
asking myself why we were even given pencils if we weren’t supposed to write on
desks.
Although trivial,
this story is an important aspect of information and technology ethics. We are
clearly still adapting to new technological moral dilemmas, one of these being
the necessary regulations to ensure an ethical use of them. Many popular sites
have been used for objectively wrong purposes, one of them being Facebook with
the spread of fake news; however, is it ethical to limit the functionality of
these technologies?
It is no secret that false
information is spread on Facebook. Some of the most viewed fake Facebook stories
include “Trump’s
grandfather was a pimp and tax evader; his father a member of the KKK” and “AOC
proposed a motorcycle ban”. Despite the utter falsehood in these headlines, Facebook
has remained reluctant in its position
to alter its platform to stop the propagation of fake news.
 |
| Screenshot of a Facebook page spreading false stories |
To
determine whether Facebook should take action, one should assess the morality
of an unregulated Facebook versus a regulated one. An unregulated Facebook is
fairly ethically neutral: users are free to post and consume content, which
they have no obligation to believe. In the words of Philosophy Professor Philip
Brey in “values in technology and disclosive computer ethics”, Facebook does
not have any significant embedded values: the platform does not enforce opinions
on its users. Instead, Facebook users are responsible for making the site an
ethical space.
A regulated
Facebook would use an algorithm to identify fake information and prevent its propagation.
Such measure, however, would also give Facebook the license to determine what we
read when we open our feed, telling us what is true and what is false. By Brey’s
definition, this turns Facebook into a platform with baked in values and with
the power to enforce opinions on its users.
Regulated
Facebook would alter the platform’s neutrality and create a potentially
manipulative tool to influence our opinions. This would be same as taking
pencils away from first grade students just to prevent them from writing on
desks. Instead, we should educate Facebook users to use the platform ethically
and identify false information.
This is a strong revision. Compared to your first draft, your argument is much more clear. I also found the main point of your argument compelling and still easy to follow. I'm intrigued by this topic because the conversation around regulating content on Facebook is very relevant right now. I also like how you added a screenshot and gave some examples in the beginning of your post to diversify it more. Nice job overall!
ReplyDeleteI really liked the little story you told as part of your introduction; it really sets the tone and the central theme for the article while also giving yourself a voice. Although Facebook might seem like a popular topic, your overall argument was unique in the sense that addresses the "function" of Facebook and who decides what that is. I also like that you included direct quotations and examples to prove and reiterate your point. Good job incorporating the readings as well, it doesn't feel forced and melds into the article well. Nice job!
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love the little anecdote that you have in the beginning. I was intrigued to keep reading and find out how you are going to make an association between the story and the ethicality of Facebook and fake news. I could tell that you have put a lot of efforts into revising your first submission. Your message now is more concise and the simple logic flow makes it easier for your arguments to come through. In your second paragraph, I like how you cut out the part that also introduces other platform technologies, in order to be more focused on Facebook only. And the added question in the end not only highlights the issue, but serves as a good transition to your example. The addition of the illustration does a great job demonstrating your points and makes the post more interesting to read. However, I do think that since some of the fake headlines are shown in the image, you don’t have detail them again in your text. I can see that you have taken the advice and incorporated more of Brey’s work into your own analysis. Well done!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading this article!!! The intro is very strong and I really like how you link it to the overall point of the article, it helps make what you're trying to say very clear. Additionally, I think that this is a strong topic. Going froward, placing an emphasis on what is right and what is right is going to prove pivotal. The anecdote from the beginning of the article helps clear that up and establish a firm stance on what the possibilities are going forward.
ReplyDeleteHi Daniel, I enjoyed reading through this article, and I felt it was well-focused. It was a small detail but I appreciated that you didn't seem politically biased by only mentioning fake news from one side of the political spectrum. Regarding the analogy, I wasn't entirely convinced that regulating fake news on Facebook would be similar to taking pencils away from first graders. By that logic, shouldn't all news be allowed to publish fake news? Why is defamation and slander illegal when people have a choice whether or not to consume the content? I would like to see some more explanation on this to make your argument stronger.
ReplyDelete