The main two courses of actions in eliminating Bandwagon Aggression are either to censor the information the public sees or to inform the public and hope that their reason for joining a Bandwagon Aggression diminishes. I believe that censoring information is very difficult because the line between too much censorship and not enough often causes problems within the public’s eye. Due to this, censoring information would not be a permanent solution and it might even lead to worse results in the future. As a result, the course of action I would support would be to inform the public why Bandwagon Aggression is not justifiable through the Utilitarian approach. The Utilitarian approach bases itself on the fact that whatever brings the greatest good is the best moral choice even if there is some bad actions involved. Taking this in account, social media platforms can inform the public on how Bandwagon Aggression can lead people to attempt suicide, as in the previously mentioned case of Charlotte Dawson, without having any major good impact. In Theory Bandwagon Aggression is focused on people who have committed bad actions, but this is not always the case. Making the effort of informing people may not quickly be effective compared to censoring their information; however, it would give people the sense that social media platforms trust them to make the right decisions once they are informed. Censoring people would take that trust away.
Bandwagon Aggression is negatively influencing how people make decisions. In order to understand the Bandwagon Aggression problem, it is necessary to know that the parties involved are the social media platform, the victim, and the audience. Justifying Bandwagon Aggression through Utilitarianism is not moral because cases exist where it does not lead to the greatest good. And if the application of Bandwagon Aggression is biased, then it is not moral because it leads to many inconsistencies. Resolving Bandwagon Aggression problems will mostly fall under the social media platform because it is the most well controlled party of the three. And, as a result, I would support the idea of social media platforms sharing information with users that would limit the number of Bandwagon Aggression cases.
0 Comments
Unders the Kantian perspective, Bandwagon Aggression would be deemed immoral, yet the audience justifies their actions by invoking the ethical framework, Consequentialism. As stated in Stanford’s Encyclopedia under “Consequentialism,” “[Consequentialism] holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act. ” This implies that Bandwagon Aggression is morally correct as long as the audience has good intentions or a good result occurs. Focusing on a sub-branch of Consequentialism, taking the approach of Utilitarianism would allow some negative consequences to occur as long as the positive results are larger than the negative ones. As stated in “Utilitarianism” by New World Encyclopedia, “Utilitarianism is...rightness of actions; it is the doctrine that, from a range of possibilities, the right action is the action which most increases the welfare of human beings or sentient creatures in general.” In terms of Bandwagon Aggression, this means that some evil is good if it brings greater good. An example of this would be what happened to Lisa Greenwood. Lisa Greenwood was fired from her job because she posted a racist tweet. Under Utilitarianism, the Bandwagon Aggression that resulted in Greenwood being fired was good because it resulted in less racism, and reducing racism is more valuable than allowing one person to keep their job.
Once Bandwagon Aggression is fully understood, the next steps in preventing it would be to analyze the possible courses of action. There are too many individuals involved in Bandwagon Aggression, so trying to take a course of action involving only the audience would be very difficult. Instead, Bandwagon Aggression should be stopped by social media platforms because they have a more unified control of what is shared on their pages. An example of Bandwagon Aggression that could have been avoided by the the social media platform was demonstrated in the article “Twitter torment: TV personality taken to hospital after abusive online attacks,” when they mentioned the case of Charlotte Dawson. Dawson was a television persona that received a lot of abuse through Twitter. As explained in the article, “Twitter users ramped up an online campaign against Ms. Dawson, calling for her to kill herself and sending pornographic images and graphic photos of bloodied corpses to her account.” In a sense, social media platforms would have to censor certain information in order to ensure that individuals are not victimized through Bandwagon Aggression. Unfortunately, there are consequences to giving social media platforms the power to censor what they seem inappropriate. Since the content censored would be based on the social media platform, ambiguity would arise and there would be too many different standards. An example of this is shown in the article, “What Facebook and Twitter ban: New tool tracks social media censorship” published by Opposing Viewpoints. This article states “Instagram blocks account over breastfeeding selfie, mom claims…[and] Facebook clarifies breastfeeding pics OK.” Although the weight of the Bandwagon Aggression falls on social media platforms, they need to apply censorship in a unified form that does not exacerbate the problem any further. The first step in resolving Bandwagon Aggression is understanding the parties involved in the problem. The three main parties involved are the social media platform, the victim and the audience. The examples of Bandwagon Aggression presented previously all occurred on Twitter, but Bandwagon Aggression is prevalent in any social media. As explained in, “Requiring Internet Companies to Police Cyberbullying Is Unrealistic” by Dan Whitcomb, “Facebook pages set up in tribute to two children murdered in February...were quickly covered with obscenities and pornography, prompting calls for the social network to be more accountable for its content.” Although, this is an example of the darker side of Bandwagon Aggression, it demonstrates that it can occur anywhere and in even in the largest social media platforms. Similar to how Bandwagon Aggression can occur in any social media platform, it could also victimize anyone with an online presence. Examples of victims include: Lisa Greenwood who ended up being fired from her job, Justine Sacco who was also fired, the Cincinnati Zoo who had to delete their Twitter accounts, and Facebook for not being more accountable for their content. Lastly, the third party involved is the audience that fuels the Bandwagon Aggression. A clear example of how the audience fuels Bandwagon Aggression is seen in the article, “Online bullying may have cost the comic-book industry its next great female voice,” by David Betancourt. In this article, Betancourt explains how Chelsea Cain had to delete her Twitter account because of how the audience reacted to the comic book she wrote as part of Marvel Comics. As explained by Betancourt, “ [the comic book written by Cain] became the target of online trolls who didn't like the shirt Mockingbird[the main character of the comic book] was wearing, which read, ‘Ask Me About My Feminist Agenda.” In this case, the audience was sexist and ultimately ended up cultivating a Bandwagon Aggression that resulted in Marvel Comics reevaluating their decisions as what passes as popular.
The reason Bandwagon Aggression is difficult to address is because the results that come from it are either good or bad depending on an individual's perspective. From a Kantian point of view, applying the Categorical Imperative on Bandwagon Aggression would imply that it is immoral. As stated in Stanford’s Encyclopedia under “Kant's Moral Philosophy,” “Kant characterized the [Categorical Imperative] as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary.” In terms of Bandwagon Aggression, this means that if people are going to abuse someone that posts a potentially controversial message online they must apply it to every situation. In other words, would it be morally correct to treat every Bandwagon Aggression victim with the same aggressive and abusive behavior despite the result? Taking this perspective into account, it would not seem rational to always act the same. Due to the motivation not being driven by the result, some people may feel leniency towards some of the victims, depending on the situation, and this would lead to inconsistencies. In the “Categorical Imperative,” published by New World Encyclopedia, it is stated that, “The categorical imperative requires one to test the moral quality of a maxim by considering whether it is possible to will one’s proposed maxim together with its generalized version.” This means that if inconsistencies arise, the action taken is morally incorrect. Applying the same aggression and abusing behavior, seen in Bandwagon Aggression, to every situation would lead to inconsistencies which means that is not correct to be part of the bandwagon. Bandwagon Aggression can take many forms, and it doesn't always have to involve aggressive behavior because anything that is abusive still qualifies. An example of this is explained in the article, “Harambe memes prompt Cincinnati Zoo to delete Twitter accounts” written by David Williams. In this article, Williams states “Harambe was killed in May after a 3-year-old boy fell into his enclosure. The 450-pound gorilla dragged the boy around the enclosure before a zoo worker shot the animal” This is the event that lead to the massive Bandwagon Aggression experienced by the Cincinnati Zoo. Although Harambe was killed in order to save the life of a child who had fallen in, people reacted negatively to the zoo keepers actions. The zoo’s Twitter account were bombarded by Twitter messages about Harambe. As demonstrated by Williams, Some of the messages that the zoo noticed on their Twitter account were, “if you're sad, just remember the world is 4.543 billion years old and you somehow managed to exist at the same time as Harambe,” and “doctor: We have bad news man who came out of 5 yr coma: I don't mind as long as I still get to visit my favorite gorilla at Cincinnati Zoo.” And once the Zoo decided to remove their Twitter account, a user tweeted,“The Cincinnati Zoo Harambe its Twitter account. There is no limit to what they might Harambe.” The tweets that were posted about Harambe were comical and got many laughs. The problem in this case was not the fact that people reacted aggressively to Harambe being killed, but instead was the fact that they were abusive. After a certain point, The Cincinnati Zoo tried to move on but couldn’t because they were getting non stop Harambe messages and this impacted how they now operate the Zoo. The Zoo could no longer give information to the public without being harassed about their decisions to save the young child's life. In this case, the Bandwagon Aggression resulted in Harambee being remembered, and the Cincinnati Zoo paying for a controversial decision they were forced to make. Bandwagon Aggression has become a big problem because it forces its influence on individuals and institutions. Since Bandwagon Aggression is a problem that resulted from the interaction of society in the internet, people need to think whether it’s morally and ethically correct to assert opinions on individuals and institutions that end up damaging or severely influencing how they live the rest of their lives.
Bandwagon Aggression The applications of technology have allowed civilizations to thrive for centuries; however, in modern times, it has resulted in new methods of mass communication and information transfer that is negatively influencing society. More specifically, technology in society has become very influential in terms of how people make decisions; it has given every user a sense of anonymity that results in them committing actions that would not normally fall under their behavior. There are many benefits in technology present in society, yet it is difficult to praise those benefits without addressing the elephant in every online message board. Bandwagon Aggression is one of the growing problem for people involved with social media or any other online means of communication. The controversy behind Bandwagon Aggression comes from the fact that certain actions can be justifiable if a person takes into consideration specific frameworks of morality. These frameworks include the Kantian perspective and Consequentialism. When taking into account the frameworks of morality, is Bandwagon Aggression justifiable or are the means of interpretation just an excuse to spread hatred online? Bandwagon Aggression can be defined as the build up of aggressive or abusive reactions from individuals in regards to a controversial message or event posted on a social media platform. Bandwagon Aggression may begin with innocent individuals addressing their concerns, but then people join and amplify the problem. An example of this is demonstrated in the article, “ Woman gets fired for racist tweet about Michelle Obama” by Alexis Jackson. In this article, Jackson provides Twitter messages posted by Lisa Greenwood, the person who posted the initial controversial message, in order to demonstrate the abuse she received. Greenwood made a remark that insulted Michelle Obama and her race. As a result, people on Twitter searched her Twitter account until they found information that led to her employer. The people who found her employer then didn’t stop tweeting messages such as, “ does this lady work for you??? cause she's hella racist????” and “Will you continue to employ someone who is racist?” until Greenswood was fired. Similar to Greenwood's situation, the article, “ Woman Fired After Tweet on AIDS in Africa Sparks Internet Outrage” by Kami Dimitrova explains another situation where Bandwagon Aggression resulted in a person being fired from their job. In this case, a woman named Justine Sacco posted a comment on Twitter that generalized the relationship between AIDS and Africa while boarding an airplane. By the time she was out of the airplane, she had been fired due to the massive outrage that her post caused. The situation that Greenwood and Sacco experienced demonstrates how effective Bandwagon Aggression is in getting quick results. While Bandwagon Aggression is effective in getting results, the results that are produced may not be the most optimal and the people participating may not be participating for morally correct reasons. Bandwagon Aggression can take many forms, and it doesn't always have to involve agg ressive behavior because anything that is abusive still qualifies. An example of this is explained in the article, “ Harambe memes prompt Cincinnati Zoo to delete Twitter accounts” written by David Williams. In this article, Williams states “Harambe was killed in May after a 3-year-old boy fell into his enclosure . The 450-pound gorilla dragged the boy around the enclosure before a zoo worker shot the animal” This is the event that lead to the massive Bandwagon Aggression experienced by the Cincinnati Zoo. Although Harambe was killed in order to save the life of a child who had fallen in, people reacted negatively to the zoo keepers actions. The zoo’s Twitter account were bombarded by Twitter messages about Harambe. As demonstrated by Williams, Some of the messages that the zoo noticed on their Twitter account were, “if you're sad, just remember the world is 4.543 billion years old and you somehow managed to exist at the same time as Harambe,” and “ doctor: We have bad news man who came out of 5 yr coma: I don't mind as long as I still get to visit my favorite gorilla at Cincinnati Zoo. ” And once the Zoo decided to remove their Twitter account, a user tweeted, “ The Cincinnati Zoo Harambe its Twitter account. There is no limit to what they might Harambe.” The tweets that were posted about Harambe were comical and got many laughs. The problem in this case was not the fact that people reacted aggressively to Harambe being killed, but instead was the fact that they were abusive. After a certain point, The Cincinnati Zoo tried to move on but couldn’t because they were getting non stop Harambe messages and this impacted how they now operate the Zoo. The Zoo could no longer give information to the public without being harassed about their decisions to save the young child's life. In this case, the Bandwagon Aggression resulted in Harambee being remembered, and the Cincinnati Zoo paying for a controversial decision they were forced to make. Bandwagon Aggression has become a big problem because it forces its influence on individuals and institutions. Since Bandwagon Aggression is a problem that resulted from the interaction of society in the internet, people need to think whether it’s morally and ethically correct to assert opinions on individuals and institutions that end up damaging or severely influencing how they live the rest of their lives. The first step in resolving Bandwagon Aggression is understanding the parties involved in the problem. The three main parties involved are the social media platform, the victim and the audience. The examples of Bandwagon Aggression presented previously all occurred on Twitter, but Bandwagon Aggression is prevalent in any social media. As explained in, “Requiring Internet Companies to Police Cyberbullying Is Unrealistic” by Dan Whitcomb, “Facebook pages set up in tribute to two children murdered in February...were quickly covered with obscenities and pornography, prompting calls for the social network to be more accountable for its content.” Although, this is an example of the darker side of Bandwagon Aggression, it demonstrates that it can occur anywhere and in even in the largest social media platforms. Similar to how Bandwagon Aggression can occur in any social media platform, it could also victimize anyone with an online presence. Examples of victims include: Lisa Greenwood who ended up being fired from her job, Justine Sacco who was also fired, the Cincinnati Zoo who had to delete their Twitter accounts, and Facebook for not being more accountable for their content. Lastly, the third party involved is the audience that fuels the Bandwagon Aggression. A clear example of how the audience fuels Bandwagon Aggression is seen in the article, “Online bullying may have cost the comic-book industry its next great female voice,” by David Betancourt. In this article, Betancourt explains how Chelsea Cain had to delete her Twitter account because of how the audience reacted to the comic book she wrote as part of Marvel Comics. As explained by Betancourt, “ [the comic book written by Cain] became the target of online trolls who didn't like the shirt Mockingbird[the main character of the comic book] was wearing, which read, ‘Ask Me About My Feminist Agenda.” In this case, the audience was sexist and ultimately ended up cultivating a Bandwagon Aggression that resulted in Marvel Comics reevaluating their decisions as what passes as popular. The reason Bandwagon Aggression is difficult to address is because the results that come from it are either good or bad depending on an individual's perspective. From a Kantian point of view, applying the Categorical Imperative on Bandwagon Aggression would imply that it is immoral. As stated in Stanford’s Encyclopedia under “Kant's Moral Philosophy,” “Kant characterized the [Categorical Imperative] as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary.” In terms of Bandwagon Aggression, this means that if people are going to abuse someone that posts a potentially controversial message online they must apply it to every situation. In other words, would it be morally correct to treat every Bandwagon Aggression victim with the same aggressive and abusive behavior despite the result? Taking this perspective into account, it would not seem rational to always act the same. Due to the motivation not being driven by the result, some people may feel leniency towards some of th e victims, depending on the situation, and this would lead to inconsistencies. In the “Categorical Imperative,” published by New World Encyclopedia, it is stated that , “The categorical imperative requires one to test the moral quality of a maxim by considering whether it is possible to will one’s proposed maxim together with its generalized version.” This means that if inconsistencies arise, the action taken is morally incorrect. Applying the same aggression and abusing behavior, seen in Bandwagon Aggression, to every situation would lead to inconsistencies which means that is not correct to be part of the bandwagon. Under the Kantian perspective, Bandwagon Aggression would be deemed immoral, yet the audience justifies their actions by invoking the ethical framework, Consequentialism. As stated in Stanford’s Encyclopedia under “Consequentialism,” “[Consequentialism] holds that whether an act is morally right depends only on the consequences of that act or of something related to that act, such as the motive behind the act. ” This implies that Bandwagon Aggression is morally correct as long as the audience has good intentions or a good result occurs. Focusing on a sub-branch of Consequentialism, taking the approach of Utilitarianism would allow some negative consequences to occur as long as the positive results are larger than the negative ones. As stated in “Utilitarianism” by New World Encyclopedia, “ Utilitarianism is...rightness of actions; it is the doctrine that, from a range of possibilities, the right action is the action which most increases the welfare of human beings or sentient creatures in general.” In terms of Bandwagon Aggression, this means that some evil is good if it brings greater good. An example of this would be what happened to Lisa Greenwood. Lisa Greenwood was fired from her job because she posted a racist tweet. Under Utilitarianism, the Bandwagon Aggression that resulted in Greenwood being fired was good because it resulted in less racism, and reducing racism is more valuable than allowing one person to keep their job. Once Bandwagon Aggression is fully understood, the next steps in preventing it would be to analyze the possible courses of action. There are too many individuals involved in Bandwagon Aggression, so trying to take a course of action involving only the audience would be very difficult. Instead, Bandwagon Aggression should be stopped by social media platforms because they have a more unified control of what is shared on their pages. An example of Bandwagon Aggression that could have been avoided by the the social media platform was demonstrated in the article “ Twitter torment: TV personality taken to hospital after abusive online attacks,” when they mentioned the case of Charlotte Dawson. Dawson was a television persona that received a lot of abuse through Twitter. As explained in the article, “Twitter users ramped up an online campaign against Ms. Dawson, calling for her to kill herself and sending pornographic images and graphic photos of bloodied corpses to her account.” In a sense, social media platforms would have to censor certain information in order to ensure that individuals are not victimized through Bandwagon Aggression. Unfortunately, there are consequences to giving social media platforms the power to censor what they seem inappropriate. Since the content censored would be based on the social media platform, ambiguity would arise and there would be too many different standards. An example of this is shown in the article, “What Facebook and Twitter ban: New tool tracks social media censorship” published by Opposing Viewpoints. This article states “Instagram blocks account over breastfeeding selfie, mom claims...[and] Facebook clarifies breastfeeding pics OK.” Although the weight of the Bandwagon Aggression falls on social media platforms, they need to apply censorship in a unified form that does not exacerbate the problem any further. Since the actions of the audience and victims cannot be controlled, another course of action that social media platforms can perform is to inform. Many people use social media platforms to obtain information; this means that social media platforms could successfully be used to inform the public of problems. An example of the power of social media platforms is demonstrated in the article, “How social media is reshaping news” written by Monica Anderson and Andrea Caumont. In this article it is stated that “Facebook is the obvious news powerhouse among the social media sites. Roughly...(64%) of U.S. adults use the site, and half of those users get news there — amounting to 30% of the general population.” This means that if Facebook and other social media platforms wanted to get a piece of information out to the world, it would easily be accomplished. Rather than informing users that the information they post can be used against them, social media platforms can explain why Bandwagon Aggression is not justifiable even through the Utilitarian approach. The only problem with this method would be the fact that there is currently dilemmas involving fake news being posted. As explained in,“ How Big Is The Fake News Problem For Facebook ?” published under Great Speculation, “ Facebook’s algorithm prioritizes “engagement” and fake stories which are surprising attract more user attention, thus engaging them better.” But as soon as the fake news problem is resolved, Bandwagon Aggression can be limited by informing the public. The main two courses of actions in eliminating Bandwagon Aggression are either to censor the information the public sees or to inform the public and hope that their reason for joining a Bandwagon Aggression diminishes. I believe that censoring information is very difficult because the line between too much censorship and not enough often causes problems within the public’s eye. Due to this, censoring information would not be a permanent solution and it might even lead to worse results in the future. As a result, the course of action I would support would be to inform the public why Bandwagon Aggression is not justifiable through the Utilitarian approach. The Utilitarian approach bases itself on the fact that whatever brings the greatest good is the best moral choice even if there is some bad actions involved. Taking this in account, social media platforms can inform the public on how Bandwagon Aggression can lead people to attempt suicide, as in the previously mentioned case of Charlotte Dawson, without having any major good impact. In Theory Bandwagon Aggression is focused on people who have committed bad actions, but this is not always the case. Making the effort of informing people may not quickly be effective compared to censoring their information; however, it would give people the sense that social media platforms trust them to make the right decisions once they are informed. Censoring people would take that trust away. Bandwagon Aggression is negatively influencing how people make decisions. In order to understand the Bandwagon Aggression problem, it is necessary to know that the parties involved are the social media platform, the victim, and the audience. Justifying Bandwagon Aggression through Utilitarianism is not moral because cases exist where it does not lead to the greatest good. And if the application of Bandwagon Aggression is biased, then it is not moral because it leads to many inconsistencies. Resolving Bandwagon Aggression problems will mostly fall under the social media platform because it is the most well controlled party of the three. And, as a result, I would support the idea of social media platforms sharing information with users that would limit the number of Bandwagon Aggression cases. Resources: Anderson, Monica, and Andrea Caumont. "How social media is reshaping news." Pew Research Center . N.p., 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 20 May 2017. "Categorical imperative." Categorical imperative - New World Encyclopedia . N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2017. Dimitrova, Kami. "Woman Fired After Tweet on AIDS in Africa Sparks Internet Outrage." ABC News. ABC News Network, 21 Dec. 2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2017. Hall, Andrew Hornery Bianca. "Twitter torment: TV personality taken to hospital after abusive online attacks." St George & Sutherland Shire Leader . N.p., 30 Aug. 2012. Web. 13 Apr. 2017. Jackson, Alexis. "Woman gets fired for racist tweet about Michelle Obama." AOL.com . Thegrio, 28 July 2016. Web. 15 May 2017. Johnson, Robert, and Adam Cureton. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 23 Feb. 2004. Web. 14 Apr. 2017. O'Connor, Ema. "The Cincinnati Zoo Deleted Its Twitter Account Amid Harambe Trolling." BuzzFeed . N.p., n.d. Web. 21 May 2017. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. "Consequentialism." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 20 May 2003. Web. 14 Apr. 2017. Speculations, Great. "How Big Is The Fake News Problem For Facebook ?" Forbes . Forbes Magazine, 21 Dec. 2016. Web. 20 May 2017. "Utilitarianism." Utilitarianism - New World Encyclopedia . N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2017. "What Facebook and Twitter ban: New tool tracks social media censorship." The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation , 17 Nov. 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context , link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A434840797/OVIC?u=csumb_main&xid=a123aab.Acc essed 21 May 2017. Whitcomb, Dan. "Requiring Internet Companies to Police Cyberbullying Is Unrealistic." Cyberbullying, edited by Louise I. Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010789215/OVIC?u=csumb_main&xid=640b5860. Accessed 14 Apr. 2017. Originally published as "Cyber-Bullying Cases Put Heat on Google, Facebook," Reuters, 9 Mar. 2010. Williams, David. "Cincinnati Zoo deletes Twitter accounts." CNN . Cable News Network, 23 Aug. 2016. Web. 21 May 2017. The application of technology have allowed civilizations to thrive for centuries; however, in modern times, it has resulted in new methods of mass communication and information transfer that is negatively influencing society. More specifically, technology in society has become very influential in terms of how people make decisions; it has given every user a sense of anonymity that results in them committing actions that would not normally fall under their behavior. There are many benefits in technology present in society, yet it is difficult to praise those benefits without addressing the elephant in every online message board. Bandwagon aggression is one of the growing problem for people involved with social media or any other online means of communication. The controversy behind bandwagon aggression comes from the fact that certain actions can be justifiable if a person takes into consideration specific frameworks of morality. These frameworks include the Kantian perspective, Virtual ethics, or Consequentialism. When taking into account the frameworks of morality, is bandwagon aggression justifiable or are the means of interpretation just an excuse to spread hatred online?
Bandwagon aggression can be defined as the build up of aggressive or abusive reactions from individuals in regards to a controversial message or event posted on a social media platform. Bandwagon Aggression may begin with an innocent individual addressing their concerns, but then people join and amplify the problem. An example of this is demonstrated in the article, “Woman gets fired for racist tweet about Michelle Obama” by Alexis Jackson. In this article, Jackson provides twitter messages posted by the Lisa Greenwood, the person who posted the initial controversial message, in order to demonstrate the abuse she received. Greenwood made a remark that insulted Michelle Obama and her race. As a result, people on twitter searched her twitter account until they found information that led to her employer. The people who found her employer then didn’t stop tweeting messages such as, “does this lady work for you??? cause she's hella racist????” and “Will you continue to employ someone who is racist?” until Greenswood was fired. Similar to Greenwood's situation, the article, “Woman Fired After Tweet on AIDS in Africa Sparks Internet Outrage” by Kami Dimitrova explains another situation where bandwagon aggression resulted in a person being fired from their job. In this case, a woman named Justine Sacco posted a comment on twitter that generalized the relationship between aids and Africa while boarding an airplane. By the time she was out of the airplane, she had been fired due to the massive outrage that her post caused. The situation that Greenwood and Sacco experience demonstrates how effective Bandwagon Aggression is in getting quick results. While bandwagon aggression is effective in getting results, the results that are produced may not be the most optimal and the people participating may not be participating for morally correct reasons. The method in which Google is allowing advertising in youtube has spurred as a controversial issue recently. It seems that advertisements on youtube are random, but this is a problem. Companies pay Google to advertise their products by putting an advertisements before the beginning of a video that a user has clicked on. This, by itself, doesn’t seem problematic because advertises can they target a large group of people. The problem arises when an advertisement is placed before a controversial video. Advertisements might be placed on videos explaining the one sided view of a person or before a terrorist video placed online. There is obviously no association between the advertisements and the video, but people watching the video may not perceive the information in that way.
The fact that advertisements can be put before any video is making companies uncomfortable. The companies that are funding Google could potentially be seen by the public as companies that support terrorism or other topics that give companies bad reputations. As a result, companies may start thinking that Google ads are not as advantages as previously thought. Google has now implemented policies for advertisements and video. This means that videos and the advertisements that go with them have certain restriction. But even with theses policies, Google has admitted that due to the large quantities of videos being shared they don’t always get it right. Google tries to put advertisements with appropriate content. These means that Google tries to take an ethical approach on how they deal with video. Google categories video on how appropriate they are and try to model their policies so that appropriate content is encouraged. They also block content that they deem as inappropriate. There is some policies at Google that try to follow an ethical guideline, but , from the perspective of the users and advertisement agencies, this is not always very clear. As a result, not everyone support Google’s advertisements and video polices and want them to work harder to censor or address strong issues. The way that Google manages their video and ads is problematic, but are their any ethical issues involved? The answer to the question is yes, because Google seems to be ignoring some issues while addressing others. This means that Google is censoring certain information that they don’t think is import. According to the article, “'I can’t trust YouTube any more': creators speak out in Google advertising row,” Google is not addressing issues with terrorism and are more focused on dealing with issues that involve gender inequality because their CEO is a feminist. The author of the article may not be completely correct about the way he perceives the Google CEO, but if Google is selectively censoring controversial issues, then there is an ethical problem. Ultimately, it seems that Google is trying to censor inappropriate content by following a moral guideline, but they make mistakes due to the large quantities of videos posted online. Due to this, advertisement agencies feel that they can no longer trust google since they believe what they are doing isn’t completely ethical. The concept behind net neutrality is that governments should not discriminate, on an individual basis, who should and should not have access to certain elements of the internet. This simple definition of what net neutrality is makes it sound like it is good, and it is when people don’t try to interpret the meaning of it for their own benefit. It essence, the benefits of net neutrality are for the individual people and not for the businesses, such as internet providers, who try to make a large profit by treating individuals differently. Businesses are forced to treat everyone equally in terms of the internet they provide.
The big downfall of not having net neutrality is that not every person will be treated equally. This means that certain people will not have access to the information that they request. This would result in people having less resources than others and eventually this can be detrimental to their life and success. It also means that internet providers would be able to choose who has access to less resources. This is unethical because there is no good justification for not providing people with certain resources besides the fact that it is profitable. There are arguments that explain why net neutrality is bad but they seem to be a cover up for that fact that not having net neutrality is profitable. One of the big arguments behind net neutrality is the fact that having it results in more control by the government. For the example, the Federal Communication Commision has the power to ensure that all internet access is evenly distributed correctly. This means that the government is forcing internet providers to do business on the terms of the government and not theirs. This reduces the rights the businesses have. This may sound like a big problem, but it is not unethical. It seems that, in this case, the government would be reinforcing laws that reduce the unethical decisions that businesses would make in order to increase their profits. There are people who believe that the internet should not be a right that everyone holds. The way they see it is like anything else. If a business is selling different quality types of a certain product, then the government should not be able to force them to sell only the best type. The government forcing businesses to conduct business in a certain way may be unethical if there weren’t any justification for the rules they impose. The justification is that everyone should have the same opportunities. This means that businesses can sell any product they want as long as they treat every customer the same. In other words, t some customers should not get a very good quality products while others can only get the bad or medium quality product. As a result of the arguments I have presented, it is easy to see how much having net neutrality outweighs not having it. Having net neutrality helps the individual while not having it benefits internet providing businesses. In some way, net neutrality is what people enjoy today. Censorship is a big world problem that doesn’t seem to get addressed often. Censorship can take many forms. In some occasions, information is blocked for being to obscene or because governments don’t like the information that is provided. In some cases, it makes sense to block information because it may be dangerous to not do so; this includes government information that is top secret. Many problems arise from censoring information and sometimes there is no clear line between what is ethical and what is legal, so we hope that they are aligned for the most part. Unfortunately, the legal aspect of a censorship doesn’t always align with what is ethical.
There are two main types of media censorship. The first one is direct and ultimately results in people being denied specific information. The second one is indirect is a combination of actions that results in news outlets not being able to provide the information that is being censored. This doesn't necessarily mean that a news outlet purposely did not report on a topic; it could be related to things such as the news outlet losing its funding because they decided to not censor certain information. Just as the force driving the censorship of information, technology can play a big role on what information gets censored. In general, depriving people of useful information is unethical because that information may serve a useful purpose in their lives. Censorship is more complicated than simply being understood as bad or good. Due to this, people may strongly agree or disagree in whether certain aspects of censorship are good or bad. From a consequentialist perspective, censorship can be seen as good. If releasing documents to the public results in panic, then it is in the best interest of everyone that the government does not release those documents. On the other hand, a person arguing with a kantian perspective would disagree because the same rules can’t be applied to all the people. With a Kantian perspective, it would not be ethical to censor some people while not others because this would then have results that potentially contradicted themselves. Example of governments that use censorship are France and Germany. In France and Germany, websites that deny the fact that the holocaust occurred are blocked. The holocaust is a sensitive topic, so I don’t believe that the French and German governments are doing anything wrong. The websites that say the holocaust didn’t occur are obviously lying and also hurting the people who experienced the holocaust or had family members who did. In this situation, the holocaust is a dark part of history and denying it is disrespecting every person that went through it. Censoring fraudulent websites would result in people being more at peace and it would remove all the ignorant people. There are many cases where censorship actually benefits people, but it becomes a problem when the government starts taking advantage of people's insecurities in order to push their own agendas. I hope this doesn’t get censored. |
|