CA 7 – Ethics of Care Tool

In the article “What Facebook Did to American Democracy” things are discussed on how Facebook handles and uses user information to give them content they like the most and are predicted to interact with the most. In the case there are different topics on how Facebook has helped give the Democratic political party an “advantage” in the 2016 presidential election with how they change and added ways for the younger audience to interact with the election on their platform, concerning that most of the younger audience uses not only Facebook but social media in general. It was also assumed that Facebook was responsible for the 2016 presidential election because of the way information was shared through Facebook regarding political ads from the Democratic and Republican party. With researched from the article that suggests there are more people who are sided with democrats that use technology than people who are sided with Republicans that are older fashioned. In this case analysis I will argue that Ethics of Care shows us that Facebook did engage in information warfare because of the unresponsible acts and some misuse of information, and further that they were partly responsible for the election outcome because of the way information and content would be displayed to certain users.

One of the central concepts from Jarred Prier’s “Commanding the Trend: Social Media as Information Warfare” goes into detail trends in social media and algorithms. In this section or concept Jarred states that “Social media sites like twitter and Facebook employ an algorithm to analyze words, phrases, or hashtags to create a list of topics sorted in the order of popularity”. This meaning that social media sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and even Snapchat collect users’ data analyzing what phrases they use when they search or comment on post. When the user searched hashtags and even posts content with hashtags, these social media sites gather this information to put those users in a certain algorithm that displays information that they think they will be the most interested in and interact with. Prier also mentions how this is a tactic used by these social media sites to see and review what recent topics are the most trending. Information and topics spread through social media faster than other way possible.

However, this makes it easy for bot accounts that could be handled and controlled by other countries such as Russia to affect the algorithm by throwing information and insert propaganda into the social media feed that could catch the eye of social media users, in this case politics and voters. This interrupts the algorithm and can rapidly disseminate a message faster and cheaper than any other way possible. Doing this can interrupt peoples’ views of something and change decisions based on the inaccurate information put out by these fake accounts or bot accounts potentially ran by other countries to interrupt huge political events such as the 2016 presidential election. Prier also gives four factors that this action springs from. Factor one being “a message that fits an existing, even if obscure, narrative”. Factor two, “a group of true believers predisposed to the message”. Factor 3, “a relatively small team of agents or cyber warriors”. Factor 4 being “a network of automated “bot” accounts”.

Using this concept to analyze the case of Facebook allegedly affecting the outcome of the presidential election, there is some research in the case that could make this accusation true with what they provided on how Facebook uses its user information and how the algorithm is created and how easy it is for trends to be created by opposing propaganda. Priers’ explanation of tends and algorithms ties into the case along with how he discusses the tactics used by social media sites as well as how algorithms are created for users by analyzing the words and phrases they use while searching through social media, hashtags they search for or use in posts, and posts and content they like, comment, and interact with.

Using the Ethics of Care tool to assess the action taken in the case with Facebook, I stand on my position with Facebook partly being responsible with the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. Ethics of Care goes into mutual interdependence with the relationship between two or more people/organizations and a relational approach with decision making and responsibility. Facebook did not show a mutual bond of interdependence with the other social media sites in the case, as they shut down multiple different sites created to put out information.

One of the central concepts from Keith Scott’s “A Second Amendment for Cyber? Possession, Prohibition, and personal liberty for the Information age” discusses “What is to be done?’ with liberty and licensing. Scott provides key problems with understanding information from the internet, including social media sites such as Facebook in this case. “Internet access is now seen as a right, not a privilege, for all, and this will not change”. “The vast majority of those who exist even partially online are ignorant for the greater part of even the basic principles of how the technology they use functions, and their ways in which their devices can be compromised. “The vast majority of users are unaware of the ways in which the information they absorb can itself be compromised, leaving them open to influence operations by individuals and groups whose intentions are less than licit, ranging from phishing to political persuasion. Finally, “every user has at their disposal a level of computing power and a freely available range of tools capable of causing harm of significant degree at a potentially global level”.

These factors meaning that the people who are on social media do not typically have full insight on all the information that are viewing online. Making it easy for opposing propaganda to be inserting online by other countries or organizations with false information trying to sabotage algorithm. In the last factor it is said that every user online has at their disposal a level of computing capable of causing harm. This meaning that literally anyone could put false information at out online not knowing how much harm it could cause with people being ignorant online with knowing the basic principles of how the technology they use and view functions.

Using this concept form Scott about liberty and licensing for information shared online, this is part of how Facebook affected the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The false information put out online affected the algorithm with the trending topics including the election itself. With people and online users on Facebook, some do not understand the basic principles and how false information can be put out and shared by millions, even billions. In other words, the saying “Don’t believe everything you see online” can be put into play. The users of the Facebook app/website can also be unaware of the ways in which the information they absorb can be compromised, which leaves the influenced and persuaded by individuals and groups who may not have the same intentions as the viewer but be more malicious or unethical.

Using the Ethics of Care tool to assess the actions taken in the case with Facebook alleged affecting the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, I stand on my position with Facebook partly affecting the outcome of the presidential election. We can take into account that Facebook could have been unaware with this issue as sated in the article that it may not be intentional as they could have been unaware of what was going on. The way Facebook could have played a part in the 2016 election could have something to do with the users itself and how vulnerable they are to being influenced by false information put out by individuals and organizations with wrong reasoning and malicious intent to destroy algorithm.

To conclude this case analysis on Facebook partly affecting the 2016 presidential election, I stand on my position with agreeing that Facebook did partially affect the presidential election. They can be different and alternate views to this case. Some could argue that Facebook did not have anything to do with affecting the presidential election and had control over what was being put out on their platform and controlling and having good supervision of “bot” accounts. There can be drawback to my argument with only accusing Facebook of affecting the presidential election while not looking into the other social media sites that have also had interactions with the presidential elections. These interactions that were implemented can include story buttons, hashtags, and ads. In my opinion the best way to go about this case would be to dig deeper and look into different social media platforms because Facebook is not the only social media platform that has information put out and ways to interact with presidential elections.