Brandon Vuono
Assignment 7
Phil355 Cyber Ethics
29APR2022
Information Warfare
“Fake News”
It’s been increasingly obvious to all that social media and technology as a whole is taking over the world. The world is reinventing itself by adding technology to everyday things. Cars today are better than the first computer. Lightbulbs have applications that control the color of sound or motion cues. As I stated, these are the reinventions of the world with technology. But Social Media is where history is being written daily. There is no reinventing the wheel; this is the first wheel. New technology we are constantly learning and evolving. This is the modern day wild wild west. In this Case Analysis I will argue that Ethics of care shows us that Facebook did engage in information warfare because they knowingly allowed for algorithms on the platform in order to help political sides better their chances of winning , and further that they were partly responsible for the election outcome because they did not stop the strategic propaganda that help a political groups agenda.
Ethics of care is defined as moral action or significance among relationships that benefits all. This alone proves that Facebook engaged in information warfare due to the lack of ethics and the relationships that work groups against each other rather than together for a good relationship and a better community. This is without mentioning Prier analysis on how Russia uses Facebook to influence false information and a false narrative to essentially stir the pot in a way that benefits an outcome they want. “Currently, 72 percent of Americans get digital news primarily from a mobile device, and people now prefer online news sources to print sources by a two-to-one ratio”(Prier, 2017). With this being such a large percentage of Americans getting their news from their phones it makes it to where false information is spread rapidly. Many Americans get their news from sources such as social media. These platforms are highly unreliable and more often than not from unreliable sources. Allowing countries like Russia to be able to so easily promote a narrative that suits the goal they have. “As social media usage has become more widespread, users have become ensconced within specific, self-selected groups, which means that news and views are shared nearly exclusively with like-minded users” (Prier, 2017). With segregation amongst social media being so easy to happen with groups and pages of like interests the window for information warfare has become trying to find a monster truck in a parking lot of smart cars. It is too easy for someone who specializes in information warfare to find their niche group and push the narrative. Russia and other entities are easily able to make accounts that coincide with what entity they are trying to join. Allowing them to push their narrative. This is what Prier explains with a diagram of how propaganda spreads with a trend. This is exactly what Facebook is all about. Giving the consumer what they want. “Facebook’s draw is its ability to give you what you want. Like a page, get more of that page’s posts; like a story, get more stories like that; interact with a person, get more of their updates.” (Madrigal, 2017). With this being the way facebook operates it is not ethical due to it purposely segregating people into groups. Yes it gives the consumer what he or she wants but it does not allow for a beneficial society.
As we see, the “fake news” trend that is in all of these articles turns people against each other more than the term is actually there for. You would think the term would be to legitimately call out a piece of illegitimate news or illegitimate news source. But it has turned into a way to put down anything the accuser disagrees with. Facebook is said to be a neutral platform that is for connection of people and news. This has been known to be false for years as in 2012 the University of California and a Facebook research team found that something as simple as the vote sticker helped get more voters out. Furthermore concluding that in areas where ads were pushed to the consumer had more voter turnout than areas that didn’t have ads pushed. Prier continues to explain how a Russian cyber operator would change account names and profile pictures to suit what their goals were. Facebook’s goal of connecting a community is Ethics of care. What would be presumed as overall connectivity for mental health and information is not how humans use the platform. The platform is used in ways of segregation and manipulation. If facebook was able to be used in a way of ethics of care they may prevent such false narratives from occurring. If facebook were to remove news sources and propaganda algorithms it would enhance the site’s connection purpose versus the information platforms these have become. This would make it user friendly and better for all. Embodying an ethics of care standard where it becomes about the connection of people and community and less about the news.
Scotts analysis to look at the online domain in military theory is not incorrect but rather perfectly dramatic. It may be just exactly what is needed to get a set of rules to this wild wild west. This war like mindset that is being explained is how social media is being used to push that narrative turning others against each other. While there is no physical war or bloodshed it is mass manipulation. Scotts explains 3 ways common social media has been used in a military type manner. First is how the 2016 election changed the republican party. The republican party used social media to promote voting in certain areas of the country. This made it to where there was more voter turnout giving essentially a better advantage in the presidential race. Second is how the Democratic party was branded the party that was resisting change. Lastly while this is happening social media use is at an all time high regardless of the miss information that is being pushed on them. “The way Facebook determines the ranking of the News Feed is the probability that you’ll like, comment on, or share a story. Shares are worth more than comments, which are both worth more than likes, but in all cases, the more likely you are to interact with a post, the higher up it will show in your News Feed.” (Madrigal, 2017). This makes it to where the narrative can be pushed and pushed due to you being satisfied with the results you are getting. Due to the algorithms that are programmed by the company it gives each user what the algorithms calculate they will like or depending on the area they live in. Essentially weaponizing social media as Scotts talks about. Weapon can be defined as anything used against an opponent to cause harm. This makes it to where there is no ethics of care. The goal is no longer a better society and community for all. Instead the goal is information warfare and how to win in any way. Social media’s algorithms are manipulated to push one opponent over the other. While Facebook and social media goal of connection for a better society the ethics of care model it has miserably failed due to lack of guidelines.
Scotts talks about introducing a set of rules and authentications and licenses for use of the technology. While he acknowledges how hard it would be to implement these measures I will agree and continue the devil’s advocate. Social media is used around the world. Many countries speak different languages. That being one constant that is different. I argue that while languages are different the argument of countries’ laws come into play. Would these countries have to agree to universal technology or social media laws? What if the countries couldn’t agree on laws? There are more questions than answers when it comes to this new beast. Why would there be laws when all the algorithms and narrative is to please the user. This could possibly take away tht function.
“As many people have noted, the 3,000 ads that have been linked to Russia are a drop in the bucket, even if they did reach millions of people. The real game is simply that Russian operatives created pages that reached people”(Madrigal, 2017). This supports Scott’s view on the militarization of social media. A country pushing their narrative to get the results that they want. Social media does nothing when it comes to ethics of care. With this they have a direct impact on information warfare. The algorithms have been weaponized to harm the opponents whether that is career or character. The platform is used exclusively to benefit one side or to manipulate. While this is not the case for all users, everyone ends up being affected by these countries manipulating the platforms.
Social media is the wild wild west of modern day. It is still in its infancy of what it will become. As seen during the 2016 presidential election Russia was able to manipulate their narrative to certain extents and groups. An example would be how a simple voted sticker helped push poll numbers. These minor occurrences had massive results. This is not what social media is intended for but they have not stopped this type of use. There are internal battles of revenue vs security. This is a harmful form of weaponry in information warfare that aggressors are using against their opponents on social media. Rules have yet to be set for such platforms due to the logistical and legal battle as it is used by many different countries all over the world. Social media to include Facebook are used for information warfare on a daily basis. This goes directly against Ethics of care for the lack of a beneficial community or society that is there to help everyone. A social media without propaganda and news but rather social connection if the original foundation of such technology. The harm caused by this lack of foundational integrity is unethical.
Bibliography
Alexis C. Madrigal What Facebook Did to American Democracy2017