Ethics assignment for 2nd hald of assignemt

In today’s society technology and social media are constantly developing and being used on a daily basis by the majority of individuals. This presents us with many ethical issues within our social media systems as not all individuals adhere to the same ethical codes of conduct. Oxford University Press (2018) defines ethics as “Moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity”. This definition of ethics is fundamental when discussing ethical issues as the rules of ethics are not laws that we as a society must govern by; they are simply rules that are accepted by society to help individuals live harmoniously with other members. Although our individual ethics and morals can develop and change overtime as we grow and experience different stages of our lives, generally, ethics are instilled upon us by who, how, and where we were raised. Irina Raicu wrote an article published by Harassment at Scale, titled “On Facebook and Denial of Massacres” (2018) where she discusses Mark Zuckerberg’s approach on deeming which posts require removal by Facebook, and which do not.

Raicu (2018) reports on an interview Zuckerberg had with Kara Swisher where she questioned his decision for not removing posts that denied the Holocaust ever happened, whilst also raising the issue of false assertions that the Sandy Hook school shooting did not occur. Zuckerberg’s stance on the matter is that though these issues may offend a group of people, it is not “…going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or…attacking individuals” as these are the only instances where Facebook will remove the posts from their service. This demonstrates an ethical issue where our technology cannot keep up with our growing society. Whilst Zuckerberg states since the posts on Facebook are not an attack on an individual they do not constitute a removal by Facebook as it is not considered harassment by their definition; Raicu (2018) on the other hand argues that “…the refusal to remove denials of recent genocides and mass shootings causes both harm at scale and harm on an individual basis.” Both these arguments provide major ethical issues when considering the fact that individual ethics are developed over time and depend on many factors and experiences growing up; and given that Facebook is a global company that connects millions of people around the world, who is to say the perspectives of certain groups be allowed to govern what society can and cannot view on their individual Facebook page.

Raicu (2018) is the author of the article that brings to our attention the ethical issues of allowing posts by deniers of the Holocaust and Sandy Hook school shooting to remain on Facebook, and the implications it poses on the individuals, survivors, and communities that experienced those traumas. Raicu (2018) states that ultimately by the deniers of these instances posting and claiming they never happened, they are calling the witnesses, survivors, and perpetrators that admitted guilt, liars, by accusing them of wrongly accounting the event. Raicu (2018) argues that when someone approaches a victim or survivor of the Holocaust and states ““Hey, no, you’re a liar…” Is a kind of harassment done at scale, impersonal, just as so much of the torture and killing that took place during the Holocaust was at scale and impersonal.” She furthers the argument when discussing the Sandy Hook school shooting – by calling the witnesses, victims, and survivors liars, they are ultimately telling a “…parent of a child killed at Sandy Hook…that both the life and the death of his or her child was a lie – and that he or she is a liar” (Raicu, 2018). Therefore, considering Raicu’s argument, Zuckerberg’s statement that these deniers do not constitute as harassment, would be false due to the pain being felt on not only by the entire group involved, but on an individual scale too.

In contrast, Zuckerberg’s position on this issue is that even though he himself is a Jewish male and finds the accusations of the Holocaust being false deeply offensive, he does not believe “…that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong” (Raicu, 2018). He continues to state “…If it’s going to result in real harm, real physical harm, or if you’re attacking individuals, then that content shouldn’t be on the platform.” Although many may not agree with Zuckerberg’s decision behind which posts are removed and which ones are allowed to stay, he provides us with a fair argument behind his decision. Even though he himself is an individual that may not agree with specific posts – he has made the decision to be impartial when it comes to what is allowed to be posted on his social media platform. Facebook is a globally used social media network that connects millions of different people around the world, and since many people are brought up to believe and value different morals and ethics, it does not mean that their voice should not be heard. The article state that “…Zuckerberg maintains that addressing a victim and calling him or her a liar would constitute harassment, and lead to a post’s removal, but that denying the victimization of an entire group…is different than “attacking individuals”” (Raicu, 2018). Although people may disagree with Zuckerberg’s position on the matter, he is able to explain the reasons behind his choices, therefore he hasn’t shut down individual voices because he himself does not agree.

Ultimately, the issues raised are whether or not it is ethically and morally right to allow people to post these denials of historical events on Facebook when it affects the people who were witnesses, victims, or survivors of the tragic event. Privacy is understandably a major concern for many people that use various social media networks. People want to know that they can trust the network to protect their personal information and only allow others to view specific information about them (IPT Knowledge Base, 2018). Facebook’s social media platform allows for each individual person to choose their profile’s level of privacy to what suits them; whilst they continue to update their privacy options to allow more security. Facebook uses many contingency plans for security purposes to protect personal information from a threat. In the instance where a persons’ account has an attempted log in or has been logged into a new device, Facebook sends an email immediately to the registered email on the account notifying them of an unusual log in. This is done in order to ensure the users privacy is protected from virus attacks, hackers, theft, and unauthorised access (IPT Knowledge Base, 2018). Facebook’s high quality in ensuring privacy of its users has established and maintained a trustworthy network, that is safe and reliable for personal information. Ari Waldman (2016) published a study on Facebook, titled, “Privacy, Sharing, and Trust: The Facebook Study”, within this study, Waldman draws our attention to how trust in a social media network’s privacy system results in the willingness of its members to share personal information. Waldman (2016) explains trust as “…the expectations that others will behave according to accepted norms.” However, this expectation often falls short when others on social media do not conform to the same social norms, ethics, and morals. Utilising this information when considering Raicu’s (2018) article “On Facebook and Denial of Massacres”, it allows us to form a less bias opinion on the ethical issue – after all, Facebook is a non-bias company that allows each individual to be able to express themselves freely (unless they post something that is deemed removable by Facebook). Furthermore, Facebook gives users an abundant of options when individuals view something offensive on the platform and they wish to report it to Facebook – these various options allows individuals to freely post their opinions or views on any particular matter, whilst also allowing others to remove it from their newsfeed if they find it upsetting or distressing.

Personal interests, in a way, become redundant when becoming a signatory to a prescribed Code of Ethics. For instance, the NSW Department of Justice requires all of their employees to sign a Code of Ethics and Conduct policy which means they each have to follow and demonstrate the values of the department both inside and out of work hours. The NSW Department of Justice has five core values that must be upheld by its employees in order to place the interest of the public over their own personal beliefs and interests; these core values are integrity, trust, service, accountability, and respect (Department of Justice, 2016). This particular Code of Ethics also expects its employees to “…demonstrate values of ethical and honest behaviour; professionalism and responsibility; fairness and equity; learning and innovation; and collaboration” (in addition to upholding the five core values) (Department of Justice, 2016). The reason members of this department are required to become a signatory of this code is to ensure the people of NSW receive a high level of efficiency, fairness, impartiality and integrity from all sections of the department (Department of Justice, 2016). When the Code is breached, there can be serious consequences for the employee/s involved. The seriousness of the breach depends on what type of action is taken by the department as the offense may constitute as misconduct and warrant serious action. The Department of Justice Code of Ethics and Conduct (2016) states that when a situation arises that could result in “detrimental effect on the rights, interests or legitimate expectations of an employee”, procedural fairness should be afforded to the relevant employee. Procedural fairness is defined in the Code as “a process that provides fairness to all parties. It includes the right to be heard, the right to be treated without bias, the right to be informed of allegations being made and to be provided with an opportunity to respond to them, and the right to be advised of the status of the complaint (Department of Justice, 2016). All employees when inducted into the department are required to become a signatory to the Code of Ethics and Conduct Policy, and as a result, can face serious charges if the allegations are found to be true, for example, termination of employment and court-imposed sanctions. Since breaching the Code can result in such serious consequences, it would affect the decisions and outcomes made by individual employees. Rather than the decisions and outcomes of one employee’s personal interests in the matter being portrayed, the decisions and outcomes of any issue reflect the department overall which is considered ethical and non-bias.

d. Briefly discuss the impact that being a signatory to a prescribed Code of Ethics, such as that of IT Professionals New Zealand, might have and how that would affect the issues, decisions and outcomes.

e. Propose an Information System (IS) or Information Technology (IT) or Software Engineering (SE) approach, framework or method 1 for addressing the identified ethical issues. Your proposed framework/approach/method should be useful to either of the HR/Recruitment or Social Media-using candidate communities.

References