User:JasperRS/sandbox

Final Draft (4-18-2017):

Lead into full article:

Since the arrival of early social networking sites in the early 2000’s, online social networking platforms have expanded exponentially, with the biggest names in social media in the mid-2010s being Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and SnapChat. The massive influx of personal information that has become available online and stored in the cloud has put user privacy at the forefront of discussion of the databases ability to safely store such personal information. The extent to which users and social media platform administrators can access user profiles has become a new topic of ethical consideration and the legality, awareness and boundaries of subsequent privacy violations are critical concerns in the advance of the technological age.

Invasive Privacy agreements:

The ethical dilemma lies in that upon the agreement to register for SNSs, the personal information disclosed is legally accessible and managed by the sites privately established online security operators and operating systems; leaving access of user data to be “under the discretion” of the site(s) operators. Giving rise to the moral obligation and responsibility of the sites operators to maintain private information to be within user control. However, due to the legality of outsourcing of user data upon registration- without prior discretion, data outsourcing has been frequented by SNSs operating systems- regardless of user privacy settings.

Data outsourcing has been proven to be consistently exploited since the emergence of SNSs. Employers have often been found to hire individuals or companies to search deep into the SNSs user database to find “less than pleasant” information regarding applicants during the review process.

Facebook Section (Facebook Emotion Study *new section*): See also: [|2014 emotion manipulation study]

Recently, Facebook, knowingly agreed and facilitated a controversial experiment; the experiment blatantly bypassed user privacy and demonstrates the dangers and complex ethical nature of the current networking management system. The “one week study in January of 2012” where over 600,000 users were randomly selected to unknowingly partake in a study to determine the affect of “emotional alteration” by Facebook posts. Apart from the ethical issue of conducting such a study with human emotion in the first place, this is just one of the means in which data outsourcing has been used as a breach of privacy without user disclosure.

(deleted)

See Also:
 * Lane v. Facebook

Link(s):

Article Linked to my article: Articles Linked within my article:
 * Criticism of Facebook; Linked--> (issues) "News Feed and Mini Feed"
 * Social Network; linked---> "Structural Holes"
 * Lane v. Facebook
 * External Links:  User fights back: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-facebook-privacy-hoax-worthless-20150929-story.html

Reaction to Peer Review: Thats a good idea to implement user opinion and response to the discovery of abused privacy violations- definitely will look into the Rome statue example. The only issue would be maintaining the neutrality of it all without it becoming an editorial of ethical user privacy.

(First Draft)

Ethical Concerns:

            Social networking sites initiated with the primary function of maintaining connection and communication between friends and family from all over the world and the consumption of information displayed by others. Since their launch, the growing popularity has made these sites (SNSs) a valuable resource for information distribution and sharing; yet the structural component of these sites has made them a controversial means of information gathering from the more private aspect of social networking. Such that the operators of said SNSs and information that was not previously known to have been disclosed can breach the interface to which information is stored and shared, can be viewed by those with the means to access and review. Yet, the ethical dilemma lies in that upon the agreement to register for SNSs, the legality of access is typically “under the discretion” of the site(s) operators and at interpreted as public, regardless if accounts are made to private settings. To go one step further, regardless of qualification of the user to fully understand the terms of service to such SNSs, times of access have been shown to not always be made known to the user.

An example of the breaching of privacy that users of SNSs recently experienced was over the course of a “one week study in January of 2012” over 600,000 users were randomly selected to study the affect of “emotional alteration” over social networking by altering a previously determined diagnostic of frequency of “happy or sad” postings and analyze subsequent response from users. Apart from the ethical dilemma of conducting such a study with human emotion in the first place, this is just one of the means in which data outsourcing has been used as a breach of privacy without user disclosure. Even further, while social media behavior is usually regarded as one to be held to a standard of equity to that in person, employers have often been found to hire individuals to search deep into the SNSs user database to find “less than pleasant” information regarding applicants during the review process; this has developed to certain industries possessing entire sectors of office space dedicated to this operation. Lane v. Facebook

Lead Section (2-23-2017):

Since the arrival of early social networking sites in the early 2000’s, online social networking platforms have expanded exponentially. With the biggest names in our digital world today being those of: Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and SnapChat, the user is able to connect, access and express almost infinite sources of information and profiles. The massive influx of information made readily available online and stored in various software units, dubbed “the cloud,” has made user privacy the forefront of discussion as humanity progresses in our digital age. The extent to which one can access our profiles and those in charge of maintenance have become a new phase of ethical dilemma and the legality, awareness and boundaries of subsequent privacy violations are critical concerns in the advance of the technological age.

Potential Article Edits (2-23-2017):

·     Ethical responsibilities of companies, platform and user in involvement and social media activity

·     Transitions and blending of purpose; that there can be a safety reason for breaches of support, but it transforms into a business purpose and soon one of control and keeping users “hooked.”

·     Role of the social media user and understanding what exactly you are signing up for

·     While legalities have been discussed it might be interesting to see how any (if they exist) pursuits of social media rights activism turned out.

·     Certainly the angle of increased awareness rather than increases in breaches of privacy would be an interesting point to explore.

·     Employment:

Aristotelian Ethics: The article is certainly premature, but has good substance. The references used are indeed reliable and there is a substantial number of them present which is a good start. However, the way the author synthesized some of the references and applied the information was biased, that the section titled “Aristotle as a Socratic,” opinions with a blatant opinion, that is cited (supposedly to mark the statement of another author?), yet has no place in an encyclopedia or information database. The article itself has valuable information present, but is quite premature and the language is elementary- transitions and articulation of topic are lacking, if there at all; all of which were present critiques on the “talk” page. Additionally, on the “talk” page there was mention of the separate section of “The Cardinal Virtues” not being explicitly separate in Aristotelian literate, rather it is a sub-set of the prior category. Lastly, the quality scale, I believe was generous, the article has the technical information to be viable, but the way it is presented is rough at best and needs to be seriously looked over. The article presents itself as a rant and does not proceed to provide flow of ideology and ideals.

Normative Ethics: At first glance, the article seems to address everything necessary for a competent wiki-post. However, after reading the talk page, it became apparent that there were actually a few flaws involved in the post. The first, and probably most major with regard to content, is that there is no explicit clarification that Normative Ethics is not a singular philosophy. That it works, as all schools of thought typically do, in tandem with other philosophical ideology and functions to supplement categorical analysis of ethical dilemma, rather than a pure form determination- which was the impression given by the author of this particular article. Secondly, the sources used are in fact reliable sources, however there are not enough of them to substantiate all of the information provided. Specifically seen in the “Binding Force” section, where the content is written not as informative but as thoughtful intuition from a synthesis of philosophical literature. Technicality error occurred in the reference section, as 2/4 sources cited, were missing links to the literature; cited correctly however. The categories of normative ethics could use some additional work as they are represented almost as a “shopping list” of cited brief fact rather than a true breakdown of the ideology involved. Lastly, the quality scale I believe was actually spot on, listed as a “start” article; the “reader experience” for this particular category states that it “leaves the reader wanting more,” which is precisely it, that this article functions as a catalyst for a more in depth explanation of normative ethics- a summary of a summary. JasperRS (talk) 07:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Privacy concerns with social networking services:

The article on Privacy and Social media is actually more complete than what I had anticipated. Many of the legalities and specifics have at least been mentioned, the writing itself could use some edits. However, my main focus of addition would come from ethical roles of the players within those involved with “breaches” in social media privacy. An addition mentioned in the talk page, but not explicitly addressed in the article; essentially of the three roles in social media: user, business and platform. Employment concerns, that public information may be acceptable, but some private information could be inappropriate for employers to view, but with privacy being breached it can be entirely possible that future employers can have access. Additionally, talks of transitions from safety, to business, to control are very real issues and progressions that could be mentioned. The difficulty will be to remain neutral and not fall into an ethical rant of user right based on biased opinion.

Sources:

Bertot, John Carlo, Paul T. Jaeger, and Derek Hansen. "The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations." Government information quarterly 29.1 (2012): 30-40.

Ellison, Nicole B., et al. "Negotiating privacy concerns and social capital needs in a social media environment." Privacy online. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011. 19-32.

McKee, Rebecca. "Ethical issues in using social media for health and health care research." Health Policy 110.2 (2013): 298-301.

McNeilly, Sam, Luke Hutton, and Tristan Henderson. "Understanding ethical concerns in social media privacy studies." Proceedings of the ACM CSCW Workshop on Measuring Networked Social Privacy. 2013.JasperRS (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)