Would it be ethical (in terms of the common good of mankind) in the future for just one social media network to have all the seven functionalities making it more convenient for us to use one integrated social media network? (a hypothetical example: We’ll all use just one -“The Future Facebook” to answer all the seven functionalities)
Years ago, people proposed that one Laptop per child can bridge the digital divide. Then with the advent of cheap internet enabled smartphones, mobile devices were proposed as solutions. Lately institutions ventured towards tablet/e-book projects for poor schoolchildren in far-flung areas. Now it seems devices do not matter but rather being connected does.Expensive and slow internet connections especially here in the Philippines are not easily accessible to poorer and rural school children where basic school hardware are more of a necessity.
Do you think free internet is the answer for the bridging of the digital divide?
Give your reasons for and against.
Do you think copyright laws will change in the future? Let’s take a look at Google books. Google began its book-scanning project in 2004, without obtaining permission from copyright holders. The next year, groups representing authors and publishers sued Google claiming copyright violations, beginning an eight-year court battle. In the meantime, Google has continued to scan more than 20 million books, the majority of which are out of print without compensating copyright holders. They are searchable on the Google Books website, which returns snippets but not entire texts. Some full books are for sale on Google Play through partnerships with publishers. Google also has certain agreements to give libraries and publishers digital copies of their books that it scans.
Although the Judges have ruled in favor of fair use and that Google did not infringe copyright laws [The Authors Guild, Inc. v Google Inc. 2013 WL 6017130 (S.D.N.Y. Nov.14, 2013)], the case has now been appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by The Authors Guild.
What do you think are the merits and demerits of this case (i.e. is the decision fair or not for the authors)? If Google’s fair use is upheld what do you think could be the repercussions in the future of digital copyright laws?
Advocates of Freedom of Expression in the Internet see this as a violation of their rights: “When we’re talking about a broadly scoped right to be forgotten that’s about altering the historical record or making information that was lawfully public no longer accessible to people, I don’t see a way to square that with a fundamental right to access to information.” (NY Times)
Where would you side? Argue the both sides and give your opinion.
“Ashley Madison is the most famous name in infidelity and married dating,” the site asserts on its homepage. “Have an Affair today on Ashley Madison. Thousands of cheating wives and cheating husbands signup everyday looking for an affair…. With Our affair guarantee package we guarantee you will find the perfect affair partner.”
Until, sometime July 20 2015, the website was hacked:
1. Analyze the problem – online privacy vs infidelity (moral norm)
2. Give the pro’s and cons of each side (read other sources too).
3. Where would you personally side (since this is an academic exercise, let us refrain from judging our peer’s opinions morally, but rather in terms of the exercise of critical thinking basing ourselves on the Ethical theories you have learned.)