On Monday we began our discussion of social networks and their impact on society. Online social networks are valuable tools that enhance the speed of communication and connectivity. As we learned earlier in the term, James Moor views computer ethics as a unique field of study because of the dynamic nature of computers and their consequences for society. I think online social networks fall under James Moor’s umbrella of computer ethics because of the unlimited possibilities they present to users and our incapability of fully grasping their potential. As a result, I think society should examine the issues that arise on them as new subject matter with a unique set of rules and ethical principles. Two articles from this week’s readings illustrate Moor’s view and present challenging questions for society.
The first article, “Facebook Flap,” discusses a recent change in Facebook’s privacy policy that caused outrage among some users. According to the article, Facebook changed its terms of use that would allow the company to have perpetual ownership of users’ contributions to the site. Personal rights activists worry this would eventually give advertisers the ability to access personal information from status updates and other private sources. Facebook rescinded the policy but the question remains about the morality and legality of their actions.
Does Facebook have the legal authority to control such content or the distribution of this type of information? Do the author’s lose their right to privacy because they post the information in a semi-public space, albeit a digital space without concrete boundaries? Even if Facebook can legally do this, is it moral for Facebook to have perpetual control of your contributions to capitalize on them with advertisers?
The second article, “Facebook Bullies,” is about a New York teenager that is suing Facebook among others for trauma that resulted from cyberbulling on the site. She contends that four high school classmates made a password-protected page used to make slanderous and false statements that were mentally and socially traumatizing. The girl’s attempts to notify Facebook about the material remain unclear. Facebook says the lawsuit lacks merit but did Facebook do enough in this situation?
Does Facebook have a moral obligation to protect the character of its users? If so, what actions should the company take to ensure their safety? Although Facebook is legally protected when others post libelous statements on its site, at what point (if any) should Facebook become liable for the spread of this disinformation?
The increasing use of facebook presents a series of controversies for the user. Many students view their facebook profile as personal property, but they are subjecting themselves to public commentary by uploading photos and adding personal details. Although I wish Facebook had a greater concern for the privacy of its users, people must recognize the agreement they are making with the company. In order to monetize the site, Facebook must be able to offer something beneficial to potential advertisers. With that said, Facebook is not your friend that will protect you. They are merely a tool that we obsess over for information about our "friends" and potential "poke" pals.
ReplyDeleteI do not think facebook should have the legal authority to distribute people's personal information. In my view, I still do not think facebook's privacy settings are strong enough since people who you would not like accessing your profile still have the ability to access it. I believe facebook should have a strict privacy setting so that only people a person wants viewing their profile (or seeing updates to their profile) should be allowed to see the information. This way, everyone would be able to control their own privacy and there would be less worries about who all views your personal information.
ReplyDeleteWe've previously defined a useful tool as something that helps you get what you want in less time with minimal effort. Facebook is an extremely useful tool that helps us communicate to the world. Since the tool just follows our commands, the users are ultimately responsible for what they decide to put on their personal profile. Users need to use their discretion of the materials they put on display. In my opinion, I believe that Facebook should not have been held responsible for the cyberbullying case because the users who created the page had a specific malicious intent and Facebook was just the tool used in the act. The same reasoning would blame the driver/user for a car accident, not the car/tool itself.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Aivi that “since the tool just follows our commands, the users are ultimately responsible for what they decide to put on their personal profile.” Facebook cannot be held responsible for millions of users’ actions. We sign the terms of agreement and if we violate them, they have a right to deny us permission from using the site, but are not legally responsible for acts we commit using their communication tools. As we discussed in class, once you put something on the Internet, it’s public and it’s published and there’s nothing we can do about it. We can take it down and “untag” ourselves from embarrassing photos, but we can’t clear caches or delete saved pages from other peoples’ computers. Although it’s nice to pretend that Facebook should be responsible for keeping our private information private, it’s quite a stretch to expect any company to be able to do such a thing. Our potential employers have ways of looking at our spring break photos and other embarrassing information. We shouldn’t expect to be able to post such things online for our friends to see, but expect the rest of the world not to be able to. Facebook isn’t our friend, it’s a very large company that allows us unprecedented means of communication, but, like any tool, it must be used carefully.
ReplyDeleteThe Internet opens doors not only to dissemination of private information, but copyright infringement and identity theft. Facebook’s terms of agreement includes granting them the following permission: “By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing,” which seems more controversial to me. I’m not a huge fan of the idea of my pictures and likeness being used in a Facebook ad.
I find the occasional outrage over Facebook's Terms of Use to be a little ironic. Since the early days of Facebook, part of those terms has been that Facebook is granted legal ownership of the material posted on it's site. Although the temporal duration of those rights changed briefly, it's not as if Facebook decided one day to steal all your information and pictures. You gave them permission the day you signed up and checked the box...
ReplyDeleteFacebook offers a service that most of us consider very useful. In order to use that service, you agree to their terms. Facebook doesn't force you to sign up or to put up any information.
As a side note, I find the accusations that Facebook allows certain employers/recruiters/schools access to private information despite your privacy settings VERY hard to believe. If anyone can substantiate that accusation, I'd be interested to see what you come up with.
I have also heard the rumors that w ashley mentions about certain employers obtaining the rights to view private information. However, I have not seen any documentation of this. If this was in fact true, I would expect a lot of outrage from facebook users.
ReplyDeleteAivi brings up a good point looking at Facebook as a tool. Facebook should not be held responsible since someone used its tool to serve another purpose. This can be analogized with a firecracker. A firecracker is meant to be used for entertainment purposes. If someone uses a firecracker to cause damage, it is the person that is at fault, not the manufacturers of the firecracker.
Obviously there is a big problem when Facebook claims that they want to claim all content as their property. Mark Zuckerberg knew from the beginning that people want to use this site to post material that is only for the viewing of certain users. When business decisions are made, it just seems as if ethical questions are not even taken into consideration. Facebook's attempt of controlling content was a decision that involved a lot of money and quite frankly the ideas and principles behind true social networking were disregarded. This is why I highly disagree with the fact that Facebook can have such rights such as the ownership of content posted on its website. It was not founded that way and for them to change their policies now because its good for their business is ridiculous. I am still careful as to what I put on the web and in case this information is given access to many entities then I won't have to worry about anything, but that situation should not even be a problem to begin with. Again Mark Zuckerberg should really go back to the basics and discuss why he created Facebook and realize the impact of privacy policies such as the ones mentioned here.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Facebook's Terms of Use are unreasonable. Anyone who joins Facebook and creates a profile assumes the risk that the information that they post in this public space can, and most likely will be, viewed by some dicey individuals. And now that the previously college-student-only network has expanded to include anyone, including employers, parents, younger siblings, professors, etc, it's practically impossible to limit access to only a select few individuals, regardless of the security settings available. The bottom line is if you have information to hide, don't post it on a public networking site! This reminds me of the incident at NC State from a few years ago regarding some students who were charged with alcohol infractions after incriminating photos were discovered on their Facebook profiles (If anyone has the link, please post, I believe it was printed in the Technician). The editorial argued that photos taken from social networking sites shouldn't be used by administrators to prosecute students because it's impossible to tell if they are legitimately breaking the law, or simply depicting illegal behavior. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteFacebook is the result of it's culture. The social environment is dictated by its users just like in the real world. Facebook is loosely regulated for content, mostly by its users reporting unsuitable content. The environment you create is entirely left up to the users and community. Therefore, I don't believe they need to provide stricter regulations because of its ability to be personalized and ability to adapt to the communities demands.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that Facebook should have stricter privacy settings, I also agree with aivi n in that Facebook is not to blame in most of these situations. It is unfortunate that this girl experienced cyberbulling, but Facebook is not to blame. As with other websites, users can post whatever they want on Facebook. It is not up to Facebook to monitor everything it's users post, and therefore Facebook is not responsible for this cyberbulling.
ReplyDeleteJon--I don't think Facebook has the moral responsibility to protect their users information. People who sign up for the service and volunteer information to other users (essentially half the US population) should be well educated enough to know what they are getting into. As we've discussed in class, any information entered into a computer can ultimately be retrieved, even if it isn't saved. I think that Facebook should only be liable to protect its users from those in society who use the service for malicious things. They should be stricter on who they allow to sign up, not on what activities existing users engage in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Braxton on this issue. Though there is the occasional case like Jon mentioned of detrimental information hurting people, most of the information posted on Facebook is voluntarily posted with certain knowledge of people viewing it. I think Facebook has been proactive in maintaining its privacy due to the privacy settings. If you don't want certain people to see your information, then block it...the settings are there for you to do so. I find it ridiculous that Facebook can even be considered liable for slanderous material on their site when they have obviously made significant changes to the site to promote privacy. If everyone had an open account, I would feel differently but this is not the case.
ReplyDeleteFacebook does have the obligation to protect its users but that also requires that the users take advantage of the protections. Like Matt was saying, you have privacy settings- use them. Facebook is an application we can use, it is our choice and our own risk. So when offering means of protection through privacy, users should take advantage of them. Additionally, by choosing to use facebook, something that isn't downright necessary to survive, you are giving up some rights to what you post. Pages are cached and information is used for things such as marketing. We can't expect facebook to come free of costs, especially since we live in a capitalist society. Everything has a cost. The facebook uproar caused them to temporarily roll back the updated terms of service, but at this day in age, we should become educated with what we are using and then make educated decisions.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with cyberbullying on facebook is that if it is reported facebook has the obligation to take the site off or remove those people's accounts. While it is not facebook's responsibility to monitor everything to make sure it's all kosher, when something is directly reported to them that violates terms of use, it is their responsibility to do something about it. Cyberbullying is unfortunate, and most people probably won't report it, but when it is, something should be done about it.
ReplyDeleteI think facebook privacy is an issue that warrants attention in terms of ethics, but is also one that will more than likely perpetuate an ongoing argument. As Jon stated, there are in fact no limitations yet placed on information that is placed on the internet. Sure, there are certain disclaimers here and there...but nothing is spelled out. It is all still very much a gray area. When people post information about themselves on the internet, they are disseminating information into a realm that has yet to designate “concrete boundaries". I don't think this necessarily means that people automatically give up personal rights by posting this information. I do, however, think that so long as there has not been a more definitive approach taken to provide certain limitations, it is ultimately up to the author him/herself to command privacy of the information they post on the web. (If you don't want someone possibly finding out what you did on Friday night, don't post it up on the web for your potential employers or whomever to find out!) I do think the notification option is essential. If facebook is not taking the appropriate measures in dealing with concerns of afflicted individuals, like in the case of the girls in the article, then they should be reprimanded. While I think it's too idealistic at this point to try and make facebook responsible for information individuals post, I do think they are responsible at least for monitoring cyberbullying in an effective manner.
ReplyDeleteI agree that you are responsible for the things you post on the site, but when Facebook started the site I don't think people really realized the implications of their actions. At least I didn't. Like most people, I thought it was this awesome site where you could communicate with your friends and look at each other's photos, etc. Now, the social networking site has gained significant attention because people are suddenly worried their privacy is being compromised. The new privacy settings have helped keep personal property private, but nothing is iron clad. With the increased number of identity thefts, I can see why people are concerned with their private property. You see something on television and it's easy to be concerned that an employer is going to see your account and a certain picture that you wish would remain private. However, at the end of the day you have the ability to delete your account. Maybe the pictures will resurface but that's the chance you take when you create the account to begin with.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question you posed, I do not think that Facebook has an obligation to search the entire site and attempt to delete comments that are offensive. First of all, how are they to know that a statement is offensive and not just an "inside joke" between friends? I would be mad if Facebook went around deleting my messages/comments becaue they took my comment out of context. As fas as the situation with the "Facebook Bullies"...why didn't the girl just get off Facebook to stop the emotional trauma it was causing her?! No one HAS to be involved, and why WOULD someone want to be involved if it makes them depressed instead of feel connected?
ReplyDeleteSince Facebook is the owner of the website, the information users put on it is rightfully theirs. However, not to the point that Facebook is allowed to distribute private information to advertisers. No matter how legal it is for Facebook to distribute information, it is completely immoral for them to do so. After creating a large website that is used all over the world for people to communicate, they should understand that the users are trusting them to not capitalize on their private information. Putting pictures and comments up, though, are all going into a public place where anything is shared. It is up to the user’s discretion to not release information they don’t want shared.
ReplyDeleteComputer ethics and facebook seem like a very contradicting issue. I don't understand how facebook can give a user many privacy options, for instance I am so private that no one can see me on facebook unless they are my friend, yet companies have the right to get on and see everything. The reason I put up those privacy settings on my page is to not be seen by these companies that I might be interviewing with, yet facebook gives them the right to see. What is the point of facebook giving us privacy setttings and making us feel like its safe when it really isn't? I think its unfair for facebook because they are not protecting the users from what they project they are through the privacy settings they offer.
ReplyDeleteFacebook users should understand that the information they are willingly offering up to the internet can be distributed. Just as internet users must be wise in the information they distribute while shopping on the internet due to capabilities of hackers, so too should Facebook users. While, users should be aware of this possibility, it is also vital for Facebook and other internet sites to be truthful in their disclosure policies. If companies can purchase software that gets around 'privacy settings' Facebook should disclose this possibility to its users. If a user is under the impression that only his or her friends can view their photos due to their chosen privacy settings, this should be the case. Likewise, while I agree that Facebook has the right to the information on their site, this right does not extent past their company. When an Interest or Hobby is posted to Facebook it is not with the intention that an advertising company will be given this information for marketing material. This action is simply unethical, just as it would be inappropriate for results from a voluntary marketing survey to be published mainstream.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the first article, I think that that would be unethical for Facebook to call your information or things you post theirs. For instance, when I first joined Facebook I agreed to the terms and condition (before it changed) and since there are privacy settings I was under the impression that I could control who sees what, etc. Therefore, it would be unethical and definitely unfair for Facebook to go against that.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the second article, I think that facebook bullying is just like any other bullying. This cryber page talked about reminds me of the "juicy campus" site that bashes college kids. You could go to your school's site and anyone could post or comment on other posts. I am pretty sure it got shut down after somebody sued them or something, similar to the second article. However, its one of those things that there is already another site similar to juicy campus up. Things like bullying, no matter what kind, will always be present. How do you feel about preventing this phenomenon? Because although you can sue and shut down the site it won't stop the other bullies or the next site to be put up?
In the end, I think that Facebook and other sites must clearly state their rights to their participants to avoid the question of the "moral obligation of protecting" its users. I think the only obligation Facebook has is to follow through with the terms and conditions. For instance, when I want to make my pictures private, there should be noway for anyone but myself (including facebook officials) to see these things.
Facebook is a social networking site that was created as an outlet of communication and personal expression. Users should be able to post pictures and information about oneself without fear that it will be used by others or turn over use/ownership to Facebook Inc. When Facebook developed the photo aspect of the site, they were allowing users to share pictures with friends and personally express themselves. However, if users had known that the site took ownership over the pictures as soon as they were posted, do you think people would have posted all of the pictures that they did? That is personal content.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that facebook has any obligation to protect its users, because it is something that everyone chooses on their own will to use. They have an extensive privacy page where a user can dictate who has access to their information down to where everyone can see except certain users of their choosing. Facebook doesn't force their users to post pictures or post what you are doing every second. Also, since this site is free then it would be difficult to say that the site owes its users anything. I feel as long as facebook continues to act according to their terms and conditions that is listed, then they do not have an obligation to protect their users.
ReplyDelete