I’m working on a writing question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.

Haugen  made her decision to out Facebook’s negligence because of the lack of  action by Facebook’s leadership even after discovering the negative  impact their platform was having. Facebook’s dissolvement of the civil  intervention team also impacted her decision. These actions and  inactions proved to Haugen that no matter the amount of information or  overwhelming conclusions that Facebook could collect on their impact in  society, decisions would ultimately be made based off the most  profitable option. By outing Facebook, Haugen is helping to preserve and  protect the quality of life and information rights of billions of  Facebook users prone to believe misinformation and be affected by hate  speech, at risk of violence ethnic groups, and young, impressionable  users.

Hateful  and controversial content is captivating and exciting. It will bring  users back and increase their engagement. However, viewing this content  regularly will make this perspective seem normal. It will stir up wrath  in users. Creating a platform where people argue and become more divided  should not be acceptable for Facebook. By removing misinformation and  hateful content Facebook can create a more positive and productive  platform. By having a positive instead of a negative impact on user’s  experiences Facebook can begin having a more positive impact on the  world. Today many people also struggle with mental and social health  issues. If Facebook prioritized having a more positive impact on these  issues instead of making a profit, they could become a more helpful  company.

Attacks  against the Rohingya people in Myanmar proved the influence that  Facebook can have on a geopolitical scale. Facebook was used by  supporters of the Myanmar Army to stir up hate and encourage the killing  of Rohingya people. Eight ads were submitted for Facebook’s approval to  be displayed that contained racial slurs and insults towards the  Rohingya people. All eight ads were approved to be displayed on the  platform. Another example of mistreatment of ethnic groups due to social  media misinformation is the rise in violence towards Asian people  following the outbreak of COVID-19. Incorrect names such as the “Chinese  virus” and outlandish conspiracy theories, both spread rampantly  through social media, contributed to the rise in hateful actions towards  Asian people and a false sense in some that Asian people were at fault  for the COVID-19 lockdown and restrictions. In both instances Facebook  did not censor or remove this hurtful information. In these instances,  Facebook should use the information provided to them to detect threats  and combat misinformation.

Instagram  is one of Facebook’s platforms that can also have a negative effect on  people. Especially young, impressionable people are affected by  Instagram. Instagram overvalues superficial appearances and users tend  to only share the best sides of themselves. This combination can give  young people impossible beauty standards and the impression that they  are missing out on experiences and living a boring life. Instagram pays  influencers and benefits from ads that convince users they need products  to become more beautiful or more interesting. Instead of relying on  these tactics Instagram should encourage body positivity and mental  health. By offering these resources instead of ads for weight loss and  amplifying unrealistic body standards Instagram can benefit young  people’s mental health and mindset, creating a healthier and more  realistic generation.

In  the past governments and groups have spent extensive resources to  spread propaganda and influence minds. Now the propaganda is easily  created and accessible. It is always at our fingertips and almost anyone  can create or pass along content. These circumstances along with the  conclusions of Facebook’s own research demonstrate the necessity for  them to prioritize limiting hateful speech, misinformation, and the  protection of people’s quality of life and information rights. Facebook  needs to employ decision-makers who will not just do the bare minimum to  meet information laws and policies in place. Instead, they should  recognize the influence and power they hold and employ people whose main  goals are to have a positive, wonderful impact and minimize the  negative influence that social media has been proven to be capable of.

Questions

1) Perform an ethical analysis of Facebook. What is the ethical dilemma presented by this case?

2)  Describe the weaknesses of Facebook’s privacy policies and features.  What people, organization, and technology factors have contributed to  those weaknesses?

3)  Will Facebook be able to have a successful business model without  invading privacy? Explain your answer. Could Facebook take any measures  to make this possible?