Currently both Facebook and Google are revamping their online platforms with the ability to censor unwanted controversial online material on the internet as well as already blocking certain online material which would be considered hateful and extremist in nature. With google’s youtube now introducing a self censoring online material censor called “Restricted mode” which is supposed to block unwanted content. However I believe that both Facebook and Google will need to carefully consider and weight the interests of all of their stakeholder’s including their advertisers, online publishers and viewers, so as to ensure there is good stakeholder balance in accordance with Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory before making any decisions with regards to selective censorship of online material.

According to two guardian articles, both Facebook and Google are having a fairly difficult time implementing these automated anti-hate speech online content censors, due to the tediousness of scanning every video or post for potential content which is, hateful, contentious, controversial or extremist in nature (Hern)(Salon). So far both have only used automated artificial intelligence to scan for key words to block certain posts from being published, this has caused a backlash due to some posts being unjustly blocked, since sometimes key words can be deceiving and not reflect the true message of the post. Furthermore it is sometimes not so clear cut in being able to definitively determine what material is too controversial or contentious to be online, so long as the online material is not promoting terrorism or violence since there are a labyrinth of so many competing and different perspectives on a variety of contentious issues. For instance while fairly extreme left and right wing political websites may be undesirable to some portions of society, so long as they are not inciting violence it is difficult to subjectively come up with a definitive definition of what is acceptable and what is not. Therefore rejecting posts in an unregulated manner according to keywords left, right and centre without a proper vetting procedure may actually have the counter-intuitive effect of giving smaller, more extreme minded segments of society more propaganda power to attract more followers by portraying themselves as heroes fighting an unjust censorship system.

Overall, I believe that Facebook and Google must develop a suitable vetting procedure to scan videos for over the top extremist ideology, hate speech and promotion of violence before beginning to selectively censor online content or pull advertising from these perceived undesirable videos without a proper vetting procedure. Obviously for easy to spot extremist content like ISIS beheading videos this is an easy task. However vetting videos for undesirable content on a large scale with 300 hours of video being uploaded every minute to Youtube is a difficult task. (Hern)

Word Count (not counting in-text citations)= 449 words

References:

-Hern, A. (2017, March 21). To censor or not to censor? YouTubes double bind. Retrieved November 9, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/21/youtube-advertisers-censorship

-Salon, O. (2017, May 23). To censor or sanction extreme content? Either way, Facebook can’t win. Retrieved November 8, 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/22/facebook-moderator-guidelines-extreme-content-analysis

Key:

(xxx) indicates an in-text citation

Tech companies in the social networking industry have been accused of sharing users data with governments around the world under the pretext of giving that information to law enforcement agencies to protect against crime. This widespread monitoring of citizens from various government around the world was illustrated by Edward Snowdon revelation that the US government conducts widespread online surveillance of citizens(Edward). Furthermore other governments such as the Chinese government are already well known for monitoring it’s citizens online activities for instance, a 26 year old man named of Wang Long was arrested in China for “reposted at least six photos from Twitter and Facebook about the occupy protests”(Shenzhen). This begs the question of whether social media networking companies should increasingly make use of each country’s legal system to defy unjustified government requests for user’s personal information so as to be perceived by the public as an ethical company standing up for individual rights.

For example Facebook state on their government request for information website that they currently only hand over user’s personal information only “in accordance with applicable law and our terms of service”(United), although the Edward Snowden revelation puts doubt into this claim. To improve it’s public image as an ethical company that protect’s it’s online user’s rights to privacy and right to freedom of expression, Facebook can go to court by citing the US constitution’s fourth amendment(Baltzell). A new policy stating explicitly that only when sufficient probable cause of a crime is produced by law enforcement agencies will Facebook hand over user’s data would boost Facebook’s public reputation by clearly illustrating to the public that user’s privacy is protected unless sufficient probable cause is produced. The value proposition canvas shows us that consumer pains of the fear of using social media to express their opinion out of fear of potential retaliation from the government will be reduced. I have made use of Maelin cheung’s Comm 101 blog as inspiration for Facebook’s need to stick to it’s ethical values where she talks about the need for What’s app whose owned by Facebook to stick true to it’s principles and not hand user’s data over to Chinese authorities.

Furthermore Tencent and Weibo could theoretically state the Chinese constitution’s article 35 guaranteeing freedom of speech, to stop government interference although this would be to no avail. However to be fair Tencent does state that they hand user’s data over to the government according to an outside blogger named “Inés Casserly”(Casserly).

Overall, technology companies involved in social media should where possible make use of the judicial system in each state to protect user’s data from governments so as to improve their public reputation and boost the proliferation of free speech using social media.

Word Count: 448  (without in text citation)

Key:   (..) indicates an in-text citation 

Outside Blog References:

-Casserly, I. (2017, September 27). WeChat reminds users of its privacy statement [Update]. Retrieved October 27, 2017, from https://thenextweb.com/apps/2017/09/22/wechat-reminds-users-of-its-privacy-statement-update

Comm 101 Blog: 

blogs.ubc.ca/maelincheung/ (No APA citation format)

Online References:

-Baltzell, G. W. (n.d.). Constitution of the United States – We the People. Retrieved October 27, 2017, from http://constitutionus.com/

-Edward Snowden brands Facebook ‘shameful’ as social network is accused of secretly backing US data-sharing scheme. (2015, October 27). Retrieved October 27, 2017, from https://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2432164/edward-snowden-brands-facebook-shameful-as-social-network-is-accused-of-secretly-backing-us-data-sharing-scheme

-United States. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2017, from https://govtrequests.facebook.com/country/United%20States/2016-H2/

-Shenzhen man detained after posting Occupy Central pictures. (2014, October 01). Retrieved October 27, 2017, from http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1605553/shenzhen-man-arrested-after-posting-occupy-central-pictures

Amazon has increased it’s robot workforce at its new fulfilment centres by 50% year over year from this year in 2017 compared to 2016 last year according to a Business Insider article. The article claims that “Amazon now has 45,000 robots across 20 fulfilment centres”(Shead). Furthermore Google’s subsidiary autonomous car company “Waymo” further illustrates how important automation will be to the economy in the future. This then begs the question of is progressing towards almost complete automation in a company’s business operations for increased efficiency intrinsically in itself an unethical business decision since it will ultimately potentially lead to much higher rates of unemployment.

I would argue that businesses who are moving forward with automation are being ethical in some ways but also unethical in others. For instance beginning to run an automated business operation is ethical in the sense that using Freeman’s Stakeholder theory, companies have obligations to deliver to so many stakeholders such as investors, managers, owners and so on, not just only to the wider society in general. For example Amazon and Google have an obligation to their shareholders to ensure the future prosperity of the company by investing in new technology and cannot sacrifice this for the interests of just one of the stakeholders, the wider society. Furthermore it is not unethical if it is a new reality that automation is more efficient than manual labour. Since the market and consumers will always shift towards a company that can solve consumer’s desires with the best efficiency regardless of ethics. For example if Google were to not create autonomous driving cars systems, the end result will still be more autonomous cars on the road if the market dictates that it is in high consumer demand.

However on the other hand these business decisions to increasingly automate business operations to the point where there are minimal employees raises the scary question of what will the wider population be employed in given that so many manual tasks requiring no specific educational skills will be replaced by automation. What will taxi drivers do when there are self-driving cars and what will Amazon’s logistics employees do when they can be replaced by automated robots.

Overall, moving forward with automation on the one hand is ethical in that it is helping a majority of the company’s shareholders while also somewhat helping the wider society by being an industry leader in campioning the new reality of increased automation in the economy. However at the same time governments and big businesses must also start thinking about how to address the Macroeconomic problems of finding new employment for all the people put out of work since it would be unethical to not address this.

Word Count: 446

Online References:

-Shead, S. (2017, January 03). Amazon now has 45,000 robots in its warehouses. Retrieved October 13, 2017, from http://uk.businessinsider.com/amazons-robot-army-has-grown-by-50-2017-1

Image References:

-https://www.google.ca/search?q=amazon+robots&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin9NDwwfPWAhWEMGMKHcP6DMoQ_AUICigB&biw=1440&bih=758#imgrc=RgLfxV4-hz9BxM:

-https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1440&bih=758&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=google+self+driving+car&oq=google+self+driving+car&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.14180.17814.0.17925.23.23.0.0.0.0.120.1237.22j1.23.0….0…1.1.64.psy-ab..0.23.1233…0i67k1.0.gv7Iru0nue0#imgrc=A3zDpo2mW2sXFM:

-https://www.google.ca/search?q=freeman%27s+stakeholder+theory&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_26TTx_PWAhUGzmMKHVZSCbYQ_AUICigB&biw=1440&bih=758#imgrc=cl18Lu63wEEhhM:

Marijuana is going to be legalized in about one year from now nationwide across Canada. This then begs the question of whether the marijuana industry is really as destructive to society as critics say it is, and also whether other certain business industries similar the marijuana industry are also being negatively portrayed over the top without being justified with solid critical evidence. For instance from a health prospective while marijuana does lead to social issues like more unproductive citizens, marijuana addiction and delusional behavior, it is not as harmful as other drugs which are not banned, for instance cigarettes. This coupled with the fact that medical marijuana has medical uses for patients in need, presents us with a moral dilemma. Are certain industries being portrayed in an overly negative light with their potential benefits being ignored by the public because of political dogma which is not allowing us to look at industries in a critical manner when considering if they are ethical or not.

This question of whether we overly portray certain industries in a negative manner without really critically thinking about it is perfectly illustrated by this Globe and Mail article I read. This article uncovers the irony of how two of Canada’s former top cops went from being totally against the marijuana industry to becoming marijuana middlemen after being educated about the pros of the marijuana industry. For instance the article says: Mr Fantino who formerly headed the Ontario Provincial Police, and who in his unsuccessful 2015 reelection bid heavily criticized marijuana has now changed his attitude towards the drug. He said quote “We’re talking about the medical benefits that have evolved and been tried and proven … it’s been a matter of informing myself, educating myself.” This is after his experience of being Veterans Affairs minister where he quote “saw how Afghan war veterans were turning to prescription marijuana to deal with anxiety, sleep disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder.” This illustrates the business ethics dilemma of the marijuana industry, while on the one hand it causes social problems however on the other hand it really helps medical patients in need of marijuana.

Overall, I think from a business ethics perspective we should reevaluate what constitutes an ethical and non-ethical business since it is not as clear cut and black and white as we perceive it to be as this article has shown. Also I believe that society should look at business ethics by weighing up the pros and cons without only focusing on either the pros or the cons in a one sided manner.

Word Count: 428

References:

-Freeze, C. (2017, September 25). Former top cops Fantino,
Souccar launch marijuana-services business. Retrieved September
25, 2017, from https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/
former-top-cops-launch-prescription-marijuana-business/article36374949/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theglobeandmail.com&

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Michael, 13th September 2017

About 5 years ago in 2012 there were several high profile cases of tax avoidance which caught UK national attention where big firms such as Google, Amazon and Starbucks were accused of avoiding UK and European taxes by the UK government and the European Commission by diverting hundreds of millions of pounds to secretive tax havens. In particular Starbucks was alleged to have only payed £8.6million in corporate taxes over 14 years despite generating £3billion in revenue over this same time period including no tax payments on £1.3 billion of sales in the three years prior to 2012 according to a Reuters special report in October 2012. This begs the question of whether businesses have the obligation to contribute a much higher portion of their proceeds earned from the monetization of their products to the wider community at large. Since a business is essentially an entity which resembles the collective interests of various stakeholders both internal and external all synthesized together. I believe the role of ethics in business for a corporation is to deliver on the interests of as many of it’s stakeholders as possible as well to deliver each stakeholder’s interests to as high a standard possible so long as the business remains profitable and sustainable.

While there are growing calls for there to be political pressure on forcing corporations to cut back on their endless quest for more profit and only delivering for their essential core stakeholder’s such as shareholders and instead start focusing more on the well-being of society at large. However this may not be feasible, we are in a bit of a predicament because if governments intervene too much in business and do not allow companies to be dynamic and effectively monetize their products and services to customers and thereby reap the benefits of their hard work then there will be no incentive for any corporation to exist and operate to actually generate wealth if it would all be for nothing in the end, hence inadvertently hurting wealth creation and the prosperity of society.

Therefore using the theory of Corporate social responsibility I believe that companies have the obligation to treat all individuals or stakeholders affected by the company’s decisions with decency and respect. This means that there must be a balance where companies have the obligation to not commit tax avoidance and contribute to the well-being of society at large, as well as pay their employees acceptable wages while simultaneously being able to effectively monetize their products to benefit their stakeholders and remain functional. Lastly in addition to this corporations should also try to fulfill other business ethics theories such as Corporate environmental responsibility and corporate honesty etc.

Citations:

-Bergin, Tom. “Special Report: How Starbucks avoids UK taxes.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 15 Oct. 2012, uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-starbucks-tax/special-report-how-starbucks-avoids-uk-taxes-idUKBRE89E0EX20121015. Accessed 11 Sept. 2017.

-“Starbucks.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Sept. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starbucks#European_tax_avoidance. Accessed 12 Sept. 2017.