Ethical Communication and Social Media

Ethical Communication and Social Media: Discussion and Implications “Almost a quarter of the world’s population is now on Facebook. In the USA nearly 80% of all internet users are on this platform. Because social networks feed off interactions among people, they become more powerful as they grow” (Gaitho, 2018). Social media has created a manifestation of a branch of society that human civilization has never had to deal with before.

Due to the fact that society is experiencing and using social media as people attempt to scrutinize its impacts, it can be harder to pinpoint all the numerous ways that social media affects the individual and the collective. One phenomenon that has grown out of social media is that people don’t only share information about themselves and their own personal lives, they also share information, articles, and images about various aspects of the shared world.

This can be problematic as many people don’t check how factual the things they post are, something that can lead to the widespread dissemination of untrue information accepted as fact. The negative impacts upon society are obvious. This paper will explore the nuances inherent in ethical communication, such as how truth is everything and how sometimes even social media posts that portray negative suggestions about people/issues can have an adverse impact on society.

Ultimately, this paper will discuss how the individual has distinct ethical obligations when it comes to the information they share and spread on social media as the sharing of inaccurate information on social media has real, negative consequences on the general public. Ethical Theory and Implications The main ethical theory to be applied to this topic would be consequentialism. The reason this ethical theory is the most appropriate for such a topic is because it is a very practical and straightforward way to determine the ethical consequences of something.

“Consequentialist normative principles require that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action. Second, we then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper” (utm.edu).

This is so appealing for such a complex subject as social media because it doesn’t require one to have to dig deep into the more complex philosophical or intuitive connections to an act or principle. It merely asks the individual to determine the overall net-positive or net-negative results of an action. When it comes communication within social media there needs to be more thought and awareness give towards ethical discernment.

Ethical discernment means being able to realize ethical issues and concepts and to use these principles to make judgments and determinations about what to do (Tompkins, 2018). This needs to play a bigger role in communications online and within the realm of social media. “Practicing communication ethics involves discernment and decision making about what is good, right or virtuous to communicate. The failure of decision makers to communicate ethically is evident around us.

Media repots of deceptive or false statements by people in business, relationships, and politics are all too common. Controversy over digital fake news has brought greater awareness of deception in communication (pew)” (Tompkins, 2018). If recent times have proven anything its that false information spread online has power: it has the power to make money for companies and it has the power to influence the action of people: how they spend their money, what they tell their friends and how they vote.

As Tompkins illuminates, there is a greater nuance in ethical communication than just honest and deception and that the interests of the individual versus the collective have to be weighed (2018). However, society would be in good shape if more people were able to just post and share things on social media that were honest. Asserting honesty and truth as the basic standards for moral decency are actual strong points for ethical conduct within social media.

News and Social Media A major ethical issue that connects to this topic is how news is spread over social media. It is common for an individual to share a story from a major news outlet on their Facebook page, without checking the veracity, assuming (usually correctly) that the news story has been properly checked and vetted. However, in the 2016 election there was the emergence of news stories that were deliberately created to be false and to paint certain candidates in a negative light.

These news stories have since been examined and were meant to discourage from particular candidates from receiving votes. For example there has been proof to indicate that “(i) 62 percent of U.S.

adults get news on social media (Pew 2016a); (ii) the most popular fake news stories were more widely shared on Facebook than the most popular mainstream news stories (Silverman 2016); (iii) many people who see fake news stories report that they believe them (Silverman and Singer-Vine 2016); and (iv) the most discussed fake news stories tended to favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton (Silverman 2016)” (Alcott, 2017).

Suffice it to say, numerous analysts and commentators have put these facts together and have pointed out that it is likely that Donald Trump would not have successfully been elected president if it were not for the impact of the fake news spread throughout social media sites (Alcott, 2017). This represents a very real and very distressing consequence of social media and demonstrates how the things people post and share can have very actual effects on the real world.

The ethical issue in this case was that one could argue that a candidate was wrongfully elected to president because this person gained momentum as a result of the lies spread by other people. Gaining a competitive advantage on one’s opponent by duping the American public is unethical and could have long term negative effects that members of society don’t even realize yet.

Websites that were creating fake news about the candidates of the 2016 presidential election and ads on social media that sought to drive people to these websites were concerted attempts to throw the election. This represented a conscious attempt to dismiss and disregard all ethical practices of communication in order to achieve a particular goal. Some have dismissed these claims as little more than an urban legend, but the research has demonstrated that this was absolutely true.

“Social media plays a bigger role in bringing people to fake news sites than it plays in bringing them to real news sites. More than 40 percent of visits to 65 fake news sites come from social media, compared to around 10 percent of visits to 690 top US news sites, according to a 2017 study by researchers from NYU and Stanford. And another study suggests Facebook was a major conduit for this news.

The more people used Facebook, the more fake news they consumed, as Princeton's Andrew Guess, Dartmouth University's Brendan Nyhan, and the University of Exeter's Jason Reifler found” (Kurtzleban, 2018). One could argue that unethical people who engage in shady unethical practices are always going to exist. Society will always have its share of people who will “fight dirty” though this fact should not cause one to give up in resignation about policing these people.

Ethical Consequences for the Future In terms of establishing guidance about making ethical decisions, there needs to be more infrastructure in place within social media that is able to filter false articles, false messaging and the overall crux of the fake news wave. Because as 2016 demonstrated, fake news is more than just a petty annoyance. There are very real impacts that it can have on how people think, and the actions that they take.

Just as it is illegal to slander someone or to engage in defamation of character, spreading fake news should also have legal consequences. However a more practical approach would be to expect social media sites to create their own parameters for spreading fake news and censoring what is false in the name of the protection of the perceptions of the American public.

Just as one can not post extreme violence, porn, sexually explicit content or cheap ads on social media, there need to be the same filter for fake news propaganda. However, simply passing responsibility on to the massive companies that are social media groups might be a slower or less realistic means of establishing change. There has been talk of government regulation, but many people are worried about the dangers of censorship and the importance of freedom of speech.

There needs to be more stress placed on ethical communication and individual responsibility. As already stated, people who lie and who spread lies on social media (that have large and small consequences) will probably never go away. However, what can be done to combat these issues is that people can view vetting articles and assessing their veracity as one of their own ethical obligations for ethical communication. Individuals have a personal responsibility to engage in thorough fact checking before they share an article from an unknown site.

After all, one is exercising the right to influence people’s minds and belief systems. The things one shares on social media can have a truly monumental impact on what people think and believe, and the actions they take to alter the course of their lives. This is not something that should be done lightly. There is an impetus to stress the importance of the accountability of the individual as an aspect of ethical communication within a greater ethical code of conduct (Drushel & German, 2011).

One way to combat the influence of fake news is to increase the diversity of perspectives that one follows online: “Relying upon a small number of like-minded news sources limits the range of material available to people and increases the odds they may fall victim to hoaxes or false rumors. This method is not entirely fool-proof, but it increases the odds of hearing well-balanced and diverse viewpoints” (West, 2018).

As a society, as individuals and with our educational institutions, there needs to be a higher level of skepticism fostered about news sources. This is particularly true when so many news organizations are attempting to publish articles with sensationalized titles or “click-bait” that are meant to be provocative and to get attention. More individuals have an ethical duty to simply not believe everything they read and to judge objectively if things are coming from an ethical source or not.

People have an ethical duty to protect themselves by keeping their guard up and objectively understanding that not everything they consume is necessarily all or partly accurate (West, 2018). Judging websites and news outlets for accuracy is going to be come a 21st century skill that we will have to develop. Personal Code of Ethics The code of ethics that I developed helped me to identify ethical issues in connection to this topic and have provided guidance when I’ve had to make decisions.

One part of my personal code of ethics is to not pre-judge people or situations and not to be dismissive or critical (in a negative sense). I’ve come to realize that sometimes it just takes time to judge someone or something appropriately, and sometimes that appropriate judgment comes from observing a person or situation over.