Don't be too alarmed... this is still a (mostly) G-rated blog on business ethics.
But the presence and role of sex is essential in any discussion of the Internet, particularly in regards to ethics. The online porn industry alone is one of the most profitable industries in the country, and was even one of the most stable industries through the recession.
Myspace has lost the battle for a clean image online. By failing to uphold strict standards for photo use and spam, it has become home to several types of activities that have permanently changed its image and therefore, advertising interest.
Facebook, on the other hand, maintains strict rules through "report abuse" links, "porn police" and other means to ensure they have a clean reputation and cater to a much broader user base than Myspace. This, in turn, ensures that a wider variety of advertisers are comfortable and find it beneficial to work with Facebook.
Then, we have Craigslist. Craigslist began as a sketchy site for trading things essentially under the table. As it took off, so did it's "adult section." Now, Craigslist's Personals are one of its most popular sections. From "strictly platonic" to completely X-Rated content in the "casual encounters" section, Craigslist is having a very difficult time cleaning up it's rep.
So here's the same old question... To what extent is protecting underage and unwanting users from this content the responsibility of the site, the law or the users themselves?
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Facebook strikes again
Last winter, Facebook faced a privacy policy scandal that enraged millions of users and sparked one of the first significant discussions about the business ethics of social networking giants.
The site quietly changed their Terms of Use – policies that all current users agree to upon signing up – so quietly that no one knew, at least for a while. When it was discovered that Facebook’s new policies granted the site added rights to user information, including the ability to share them with 3rd party users, there was an understandable uproar.
Though Facebook quickly rescinded the changes, articles such as the Consumerist.com post titled “Facebook's New Terms Of Service: 'We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever,’” shocked the 175 million users at the time and Facebook has been under close moderation since.
However, it seems they struck again. Only roughly 14 months later, Facebook has again discreetly changed their policies, hoping that users don’t notice.
Often ethics conflict with profits, and that is again the case with the Facebook situation. Because Facebook’s business is based on advertising, by changing the policies and privacy settings frequently, that opens up user information to the whole web.
For the most part, advertising is harmless. But as discussed in my last post, giving too much information on the Internet, especially when you are unaware you are doing so, can be very dangerous.
The site quietly changed their Terms of Use – policies that all current users agree to upon signing up – so quietly that no one knew, at least for a while. When it was discovered that Facebook’s new policies granted the site added rights to user information, including the ability to share them with 3rd party users, there was an understandable uproar.
Though Facebook quickly rescinded the changes, articles such as the Consumerist.com post titled “Facebook's New Terms Of Service: 'We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever,’” shocked the 175 million users at the time and Facebook has been under close moderation since.
However, it seems they struck again. Only roughly 14 months later, Facebook has again discreetly changed their policies, hoping that users don’t notice.
Often ethics conflict with profits, and that is again the case with the Facebook situation. Because Facebook’s business is based on advertising, by changing the policies and privacy settings frequently, that opens up user information to the whole web.
For the most part, advertising is harmless. But as discussed in my last post, giving too much information on the Internet, especially when you are unaware you are doing so, can be very dangerous.
the ads have it
Targeted advertising is booming on the internet. From Gmail's invasive headliner blurbs highlighting anything and everything mentioned in emails, to customized ads on your browser copying everything shoppers search for, it is clear that the web experience is more individualized than ever.
When I sign in to Facebook, I'm always interested to see what the ads will be. Recently, the ad gods have pegged me for an animal lover (true), sorority girl (okay, fair enough), USC student (duh), homeowner (nope), chef (I wish) and someone in need of a nose job (ouch!).
So they may have not perfected the science quite yet, but the ads definitely tap in to profile information, key words used in conversations, and searches elsewhere online while logged in. Creepy, isn't it? When I asked my roommate how she felt about the effectiveness of the targeted Facebook ads, she scowled and said, "It's stupid. I'm not on Facebook for that." But I know of at least one time I clicked an animal-related ad, so they must be doing something right.
The business ethics issue here brings up the same concerns that I have with all of these social networking sites. Where is the line drawn between what belongs to the user, and what belongs to the owner of the site?
On Gmail, for example, they can literally filter through the content in my emails and display ads that relate. Did I mention these include personal, business and other emails? I know Gmail owns the server, but that's just wrong.
However, the worst invasion of privacy and user rights I've ever seen was on a Facebook ad. Apparently, if you pay enough money, you can turn literally anything into an ad on that site, and it can be shown to a certain audience (like those in the USC network).
In this case, I was scrolling along my page when I saw that one of the ads pictured a male USC student that I know. The ad read:
"Don't let what happened to Steve happen to you, get tested for STDs.. he had to learn the hard way."
Believe me, Steve is not an STD spokesperson. Nor is he a model. One of his friends submitted the picture and bought an ad as a prank.
That's just taking it too far!
When I sign in to Facebook, I'm always interested to see what the ads will be. Recently, the ad gods have pegged me for an animal lover (true), sorority girl (okay, fair enough), USC student (duh), homeowner (nope), chef (I wish) and someone in need of a nose job (ouch!).
So they may have not perfected the science quite yet, but the ads definitely tap in to profile information, key words used in conversations, and searches elsewhere online while logged in. Creepy, isn't it? When I asked my roommate how she felt about the effectiveness of the targeted Facebook ads, she scowled and said, "It's stupid. I'm not on Facebook for that." But I know of at least one time I clicked an animal-related ad, so they must be doing something right.
The business ethics issue here brings up the same concerns that I have with all of these social networking sites. Where is the line drawn between what belongs to the user, and what belongs to the owner of the site?
On Gmail, for example, they can literally filter through the content in my emails and display ads that relate. Did I mention these include personal, business and other emails? I know Gmail owns the server, but that's just wrong.
However, the worst invasion of privacy and user rights I've ever seen was on a Facebook ad. Apparently, if you pay enough money, you can turn literally anything into an ad on that site, and it can be shown to a certain audience (like those in the USC network).
In this case, I was scrolling along my page when I saw that one of the ads pictured a male USC student that I know. The ad read:
"Don't let what happened to Steve happen to you, get tested for STDs.. he had to learn the hard way."
Believe me, Steve is not an STD spokesperson. Nor is he a model. One of his friends submitted the picture and bought an ad as a prank.
That's just taking it too far!
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Is there any obligation to monitor content?
...what if there are lives at stake?
As a sequel to my last post about the 14-year-old who was pushed to suicide after being harassed for months online, I want to discuss the threats made to President Obama recently on Facebook.
Third-party developers -- a subject that will be discussed at length in the future -- are allowed to create applications like games and polls for use on Facebook. In this situation, a user created a poll asking whether President Obama should be killed. In another incident that occured around the same time, a Facebook group was created titled "Kill Obama" as pictured below.
Though it is not clear how long it existed, the group was able to obtain more than 150 members before the Secret Service was informed and Facebook removed the group. Several people have wondered why it existed for so long? And there are rumors that it was actually a few concerned citizens, not Facebook officials who monitor content daily, that contacted the government.
Though it is a federal crime to threaten the President, isn't there also some ethical requirement of these sites to remove this content? What is the case for other social networking content that may not threaten the President, but some other official? Or even another citizen?
The enormous growth of social networking sites in recent years, has made them go from small forums to big businesses. Certainly, I do not expect anyone to infringe on the free speech of others, but as corporations they own all of the content and therefore have a responsibility to make sure it is not doing harm, let alone breaking laws.
As a sequel to my last post about the 14-year-old who was pushed to suicide after being harassed for months online, I want to discuss the threats made to President Obama recently on Facebook.
Third-party developers -- a subject that will be discussed at length in the future -- are allowed to create applications like games and polls for use on Facebook. In this situation, a user created a poll asking whether President Obama should be killed. In another incident that occured around the same time, a Facebook group was created titled "Kill Obama" as pictured below.
Though it is not clear how long it existed, the group was able to obtain more than 150 members before the Secret Service was informed and Facebook removed the group. Several people have wondered why it existed for so long? And there are rumors that it was actually a few concerned citizens, not Facebook officials who monitor content daily, that contacted the government.
Though it is a federal crime to threaten the President, isn't there also some ethical requirement of these sites to remove this content? What is the case for other social networking content that may not threaten the President, but some other official? Or even another citizen?
The enormous growth of social networking sites in recent years, has made them go from small forums to big businesses. Certainly, I do not expect anyone to infringe on the free speech of others, but as corporations they own all of the content and therefore have a responsibility to make sure it is not doing harm, let alone breaking laws.
When the Law Steps in: Cyberbullying
This just in -- the law may be stepping in to take care of a problem that has plagued social networking sites since their creation: "cyberbullying."
According to the proposed bill, "harassing or intimidating someone by text message, e-mail or posts" would now be considered a crime. This comes after the recent suicide of a 14-year-old girl in January who was bullied online for months.
The proposal of this bill suggests what has long been argued in discussions of ethical obligations of corporations may be true.
Is it the responsibility of the law, and only the law, to maintain an ethical standard in society?
According to Milton Friedman, businesses have no "corporate social responsibility" beyond earning profits and following the law. If this is true, it is essential that the law keep up with society.
In the case of cyberbullying, the law was too late. Had Facebook or Myspace had the social responsibility to monitor their content, instead of provide a forum for harassment and bullying, maybe things would be different.
According to the proposed bill, "harassing or intimidating someone by text message, e-mail or posts" would now be considered a crime. This comes after the recent suicide of a 14-year-old girl in January who was bullied online for months.
The proposal of this bill suggests what has long been argued in discussions of ethical obligations of corporations may be true.
Is it the responsibility of the law, and only the law, to maintain an ethical standard in society?
According to Milton Friedman, businesses have no "corporate social responsibility" beyond earning profits and following the law. If this is true, it is essential that the law keep up with society.
In the case of cyberbullying, the law was too late. Had Facebook or Myspace had the social responsibility to monitor their content, instead of provide a forum for harassment and bullying, maybe things would be different.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Privacy: why you should be afraid, very afraid
We hear more every day about the dangers of disclosing too much on an online profile because of it's real world application. The idea of having a secret Internet identity is long gone -- with the booming growth of social networking, an Internet persona is forever linked to real life, whether you like it or not.
So who actually sees your profile (other than your BFF's and that cute guy you met last weekend), and what do they see? More importantly, what does it mean to them?
Generation Y has long been warned against publishing incriminating evidence on the Internet, particularly for hiring reasons. (Check out these 6 career-killing FB mistakes) However, it seems that every privacy concern is swiftly countered with a new privacy setting on some of the most prominent networking sites. Is this so-called "privacy" just giving users a false sense of security?
Beyond worrying about a future employer finding that less-than-professional picture, let alone parents for younger users, other types of companies are now intruding on this new found portal for self-expression.
According to recent news, now you need to watch out for your banker.
That's right, soon that compromising Myspace comment could strip you of a good loan.
Is this fair? It may not be fair... but it is ethical. The Internet is a public space, and we should all know that by now. Yes, certain sites create a facade, leading users to believe that by simply making a profile "friends only," they are safe; but that is only to a certain extent. Those sites do not guarantee that big companies won't find a way around it. It is the user's obligation to filter what is shared.
...so hold off on that picture of you shotgunning your beer from last month's Vegas trip and you'll be fine.
More on big business use for other online purposes later!
So who actually sees your profile (other than your BFF's and that cute guy you met last weekend), and what do they see? More importantly, what does it mean to them?
Generation Y has long been warned against publishing incriminating evidence on the Internet, particularly for hiring reasons. (Check out these 6 career-killing FB mistakes) However, it seems that every privacy concern is swiftly countered with a new privacy setting on some of the most prominent networking sites. Is this so-called "privacy" just giving users a false sense of security?
Beyond worrying about a future employer finding that less-than-professional picture, let alone parents for younger users, other types of companies are now intruding on this new found portal for self-expression.
According to recent news, now you need to watch out for your banker.
That's right, soon that compromising Myspace comment could strip you of a good loan.
Is this fair? It may not be fair... but it is ethical. The Internet is a public space, and we should all know that by now. Yes, certain sites create a facade, leading users to believe that by simply making a profile "friends only," they are safe; but that is only to a certain extent. Those sites do not guarantee that big companies won't find a way around it. It is the user's obligation to filter what is shared.
...so hold off on that picture of you shotgunning your beer from last month's Vegas trip and you'll be fine.
More on big business use for other online purposes later!
The Ethics of Social Networking
What is social media, and where does it fit in the corporate world? The user-based, personalized and interactive nature of social media sites give them a friendly and harmless appearance. But the reality is that these web sites are real companies, some even multi-billion dollar corporations, whose primary purpose is to make a profit and please shareholders. These corporations lead an entire industry and set their own rules.
So what are the rules? In the fairly new industry, there is no precedent or standard for how the company should be run in terms of ethics. Are these sites just fun places for users to interact online? Or are they deceitful corporate giants, lacking a standard for business ethics and taking advantage of the many young, naïve consumers in the social media world?
This blog will focus on the business ethics issues that arise daily in the social media scope. It will focus primarily on Facebook and Twitter, with discussions of Myspace and LinkedIn as well.
...You know you want to keep reading now..
So what are the rules? In the fairly new industry, there is no precedent or standard for how the company should be run in terms of ethics. Are these sites just fun places for users to interact online? Or are they deceitful corporate giants, lacking a standard for business ethics and taking advantage of the many young, naïve consumers in the social media world?
This blog will focus on the business ethics issues that arise daily in the social media scope. It will focus primarily on Facebook and Twitter, with discussions of Myspace and LinkedIn as well.
...You know you want to keep reading now..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
