The Ethical Dilemmas of the Boston Bombings

Gone are the days of traditional mediums like radio, television, and newspapers relaying news of world events. At least, such is the case for Millennials who use Twitter and Facebook as their news outlets.

They use these platforms to make sense of their world -- getting quick, uncensored, up-to-the-minute updates as emergencies, such as the Boston Bombings, unfold. Social media is a great way to find out information from news organizations and citizen journalists alike, but at what point are uncensored images too graphic for public consumption?

I remember sitting in my office one afternoon when I saw my Twitter timeline go from generally happy conversations of daily activities and Taylor Swift dancing vines to "My prayers go out to Boston." Within an hour, my timeline had become inundated with information about the bombings, the suspects, and graphic photos with few warnings of explicit content.

I clicked through post after post to see if there was someone I recognized, and simultaneously prayed that I didn't. One photo in particular is ingrained to memory. One of a man being pushed in a wheelchair with one leg missing, and the other blown away with the remaining bone exposed. One that I won't post because it can't be unseen.

It's sad. It's gruesome. And it could have gone without posting.

It was one thing to read of screaming, crying, running footsteps, and first responders' vehicles arriving to the scene. Boston was in a state of emergency and the attack created utter chaos. But this photo in particular was not needed to illustrate the realities of the event. It takes storytelling to another level - it haunts me.

I had ethical issues with viewing this photo because traumatic imagery can cause viewers to experience distress, anxiety, and helplessness as I did. Especially for minors, or anyone with a personal connection to the victim or event - posting this photo involves injury by exposure. A photo like this is simply too grisly and too graphic for public consumption.

More importantly, I had ethical issues for the man in the image. His consent for the photo was not given, his face was not blacked out, and his privacy was blatantly obstructed. The image was shared beyond measure and any time that he searches his name thereafter, he will be reminded back to this horrific time and place. For him, this will never go away.

I understand images are essential to storytelling, but I refuse to believe that we have become numb to graphic, traumatic images such as these. I think emergencies such as the Boston Bombings could use more sensitivity. And I believe that news organizations and people should aim to be humane and decent when using social media, not always for shock value.

Leave me with your thoughts below!

Read More

Ad-Free Ello - Too Good to Be True?

This week we discussed the ins and outs of data mining. I learned it's a thriving industry. At its core, data mining creates a win-win scenario for both businesses and consumers. According to the McKinsey Global Institute, big data can increase profits in the retail sector by 60%. By providing personal data, consumers benefit from greater business efficiencies and new products. This is a result of the consumer making contact with some well-placed ad in a targeted mailer, email, search engine, or promoted post on a given network. So what happens when the ads don't exist?

You get Ello.

Ello is the social network that prides itself on providing an 'ethical' ad-free experience. This article details how they've gone so far as to become a Public Benefits Corporation, legally binding itself to never data mine, make money from selling ads or sell user data. It's all a commitment to "benefit society as a whole, not just make money from its investors." This 'society' it claims to benefit, however, is limited since users can't join without an invite.  (Links to an external site.)

After a year of operation, Ello is still in beta testing. Just last month they were putting final touches on sharing video and audio media (Vimeo, Soundcloud, Dailymotion, etc.) into their posts. Ironically enough, Ello's cannot entirely eradicate ads from their platform... specifically those embedded within YouTube videos. Ello polled their users to find out what their opinions were on the matter. 

You know what they found out? Their users didn't care about the occasional ad - they just wanted to share the content with their friends. I'll admit, I was surprised to read that since this blatantly goes against their no-ads policy (isn't that why the users are there in the first place?!). I just imagine social networks like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram sticking their noses up and saying "I told you so" to Ello for thinking they could truly rid themselves of ads on their site. And who is to say that these other video and audio mediums will not also incorporate embedded ads somewhere down the line? 

Ello was thoughtful enough to further compromise by allowing users to manage their settings - providing the option to toggle off from embedded media - to protect themselves from even accidentally seeing an ad. Perhaps social giants can take a page out of Ello's book and add some of these settings to their own platforms, cutting down on the "noise" that bombards users' timelines. 

My thoughts on Ello's future? It may not be the next Facebook, but it'll work for those who use the platform as well as any other. Robert Wringham says, "(Ello is) superior to its competitor but failing to win popular traction...[but] a social network doesn't need approval from everyone to work." I certainly agree with that. 

Read More

The T's and C's of Whisper

Whisper, formerly known as WhisperText, is an application that launched in March 2012, claiming to be “the first completely anonymous social media network.” The features of the app include the capability to post anonymous messages or “whispers” in the form of text overlaid on a picture. 

Users have the option to respond to an anonymous post publicly or to private pseudonymous chats, but don’t have a public identity in the app. Developers claimed this would counter cyberbullying and the usual self-promotion found on Facebook since users had the opportunity to over share without repercussion. 

In October 2014, The Guardian planned to write a story about Whisper’s internal practices that breached the agreement made with its users, specifically in terms to privacy. 

Prior to the Guardian’s allegations, Whisper explicitly stated their commitment “to protecting [a user’s] privacy and the security of personally identifying information.” The ethical implications of these terms and conditions for Whisper are to act in a way that upholds the anonymity of their users. The references below illustrate just a couple of their underhanded tactics and the safeguards they put in place to address these issues:

• Every post is retained in a central database and users who expressly opted out of geolocation are tracked via IP data
• Previous terms of service said a user’s “permission to our access to and tracking of your location based information is purely voluntary.” Terms now tell users to bear in mind that even if location services are disabled, Whisper “may still determine your city, state, and country location based on your IP address.” 
• User information and posts that pose are shared with the Department of Defense, FBI, and M15
• Whisper’s new terms of service state they “may monitor User Content…[and] take proactive steps, including without limitation notification to appropriate authorities…[users] hereby expressly acknowledge and agree to such monitoring and that [they] may disclose information and data that might lead to your identification if, at [their] sole discretion, deem it appropriate to protect you or others from serious harm.”

The fact that their terms and conditions had to be rewritten to make their actions permissible is frightening. Truly, this app doesn't deserve their audience if they can be so dishonest in the way they conduct their network. In addition to now warning users of turning on geolocation services, their terms warn users to not include personal information that may “allow others, over time, to make a determination as to [their] identity based on the content of whispers as well as general location” in order to preserve anonymity.

Even with the detailed instructions in place for law enforcement agencies to obtain user data, I still question Whisper's legal threshold for providing private information. Whisper claims the measures taken to protect their users’ identities are “extremely secure,” but if The Guardian found these loopholes, how could they possibly expect their users to trust them on the promise of anonymity when they blatantly disregard their sole interest in using the site? 

Read More