Unit 6 Assessment - Written Proposal

Running Head: UNIT 5 ETHICAL ARGUMENT 1

ETHICAL ARGUMENT 5

Ethical Argument

Brandon Coleman

Social Issues and Technology

Herzing University

Ethical Argument

What are the moral dilemmas related to the technology you are writing about?

The technology being explored is social media, an interactive internet-based technology that has been widely embraced across the globe. One of the moral dilemmas associated with social media is the speech dilemma (Goodyear, 2017). The moral concern, in this case, is drawing the line between hate speech and offensive speech. Many argue that there is the liberty of discussion and thought in the online space and that restricting speech eliminates the opportunity for learning and correcting errors. Therefore, there is confusion about whether banning offensive speech that carries brutal truths is justified. As much as opinion on social media may be framed offensively, there are instances where such opinions may be the uncomfortable truth of a matter which if put into thought, can contribute to transformations in society. The dilemma arises on whether to tolerate offensive yet truthful speech on social media or ban offensive speech altogether.

Another moral dilemma associated with this technology is related to the privacy of social media users. Despite the existence of the legal right to privacy for social media users, there have been concerns as to whether the collection of user information with great commercial value by social networks is morally justified. Thirdly, is the moral dilemma experienced by social media users when it comes to balancing the professional and personal dimension of their lives. More often than not, individual social media users face the dilemma of whether they can express their personal views on social media platforms, even if these views go against the moral standards and values held in high regard by the organizations they work for.

What are the moral values of the audience members you are soliciting into social change?

Removing internet wrongdoings is a social change in this circumstance. The target audiences whose efforts are being solicited to drive this social change include the stakeholders from giant social media networks where internet wrongdoings speech is quite prevalent, and nonprofit organizations such as the United Nations and the Organization for social media safety. One of the moral values embraced by these audiences is responsibility and accountability (Malmasi & Zampieri, 2017). The social media network stakeholders are mindful that they have broad obligations to the society at large, and are keen on ensuring that their actions and activities are in line with the social order system. The United Nations and the Organization for social media safety are also strong in making sure that they are responsible for any deviations from their detailed objectives and goals.

Respect is another moral value held in high regard by these audiences. These social media network stakeholders make a determined effort to ensure that the human right to freedom of speech is respected at all times. The United Nations and the Organization for social media safety are requiring social media users to extend respect to the diverse social media users. Sensitivity to public safety is another moral value upheld by these audiences. Another moral value exhibited by these audiences is a commitment to societal progress. These audiences are deep in ensuring that their endeavors constantly drive positive changes in society.

How do the moral concerns of this technology relate to the moral values of your audience?

Limiting speech requires these audiences to hold wrongdoers of unsuitable speech accountable for their actions. It is their responsibility to limit and make clear the kind of content users can put out on the social platforms in order, and take the necessary course of action, including legal actions, for users spreading hatred speech on these platforms. Being intentional about curbing wrongdoing speech reflects this audience’s values of responsibility and accountability (Fuchs, 2017). It also strengthens these audiences’ capacity to make positive contributions to society at large since they will be instilling positive behaviors amongst the general public. The privacy of social media users must be respected by these audiences. Signing up for the services offered by these audiences should not provide a leeway for them to collect users’ information because it is not guaranteed that the information collected will not go beyond the intended recipients. This is also in adherence to sensitivity to public safety because when users’ information falls into the wrong hands, impersonations of users will be on the rise, further fuelling increasing hate speeches online. Lastly, concerns on how users can achieve freedom of speech without their loyalty to their organization being questioned require these audiences to exercise responsibility as far as carefully defining what is unacceptable and offensive from an employee in the online space are concerned.

What arguments for reform should you make to convince audience members to participate in your reform coalition?

The first moral argument is that “social media technology has and continues to broaden the potential for societal harm through incitements and hateful messages”. This argument affirms that social media in this current age is no longer a haven as it was during its easy stages of adoption. It reveals that these audiences need to act swiftly in designing mechanisms to further regulate the kind of speech tolerated on social media platforms without unduly impairing freedom of speech. The second moral argument is that “Given the complexity of this social problem, intensifying efforts to reduce it should no longer be considered an option, but a necessity.” This argument reveals that internet wrongdoings require the immediate attention of these audiences because of failure to salvage the situation will result in more grave and irreversible consequences in the society, as noted by (Alkiviadou, 2019). It will influence them that closing an eye to the spread of ill uncertain information on social media platforms is a huge risk that they cannot afford to embrace.

References

Alkiviadou, N. (2019). Hate Speech On Social Media Networks: Towards A Regulatory Framework?. Information & Communications Technology Law, 28(1), 19-35. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13600834.2018.1494417

Fuchs, C. (2017). Social Media: A Critical Introduction. Sage.

http://fuchs.uti.at/books/social-media-a-critical-introduction/

Goodyear, V. A. (2017). Social Media, Apps, and Wearable Technologies: Navigating Ethical Dilemmas and Procedures. Qualitative Research In Sport, Exercise, and Health, 9(3), 285-302. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2159676X.2017.1303790

Malmasi, S., & Zampieri, M. (2017). Detecting Hate Speech In Social Media. ArXiv Preprint https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.06427