Analysis of an Ethical Issue Involving Facebook - Essay Example

April 11, Analysis of an Ethical Issue Involving Facebook Ethics are frequently present in controversial situations. Thereis rarely a story or hot issue in the news that does not deal with ethics. One of the most notorious topics of trepidation in recent years has been Facebook. “19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg launched the site as a Harvard sophomore on February 4, 2004” (Carlson). Since then, its popularity has skyrocketed and so have the lawsuits and problems pertaining to various members of society. Facebook in the facade of other businesses as well as its sudden implementation of a new Terms of Service Agreement ensues unethical issues of varying degrees. Many comments are made on Facebook, especially on an individual’s personal profile. For the majority of people these comments do not resolve in conflict, specifically work-related conflict. However, it is getting more and more difficult to separate Facebook from the workplace. Employers are now utilizing Facebook as a means for hire or no hire depending on the profile. An interview may be determined by whether or not an interviewee has photos of him or herself intoxicated with supporting graphic posts that employers do not find desirable in coworkers. Likewise, a presentable profile may increase the chances of a person being hired. Employers are attempting to observe who potential hires truly are and how they carry on in their daily lives as a way to weed out problematic hires. The same is true for an employee’s current boss, or employer who may keep tabs on the employee to make sure he or she is a consistently presentable person as that employee is in some way or another a representation of the company. No employer wants an employee to state that they work for their company on Facebook then flood their profile with vulgar or inappropriate information. Unsuitable photos or language on Facebook is not the only concern potential applicants have when being inspected by an employer (mostly without their knowledge). Facebook gives the user the option to post their religion, race, age, health, and political views making it an unethical resource. Employers should not be granted this information as it may stipulate unjust action. The employer is open to discriminate an applicant based on this information that would otherwise not be at their disposal. “It is unfair for employers, absent express permission from an employee or potential employee, to find ways to check these sites, which are created, in most cases, for friends, family, and social acquaintances” (Marshall). Not only is that important to recognize when signing up for Facebook, but it is also crucial to know that future employers are not the only ones who are eager to view and use an individual’s profile page for some thing other than what it is intended. Facebook exploited a new Terms of Service in 2009. It states: You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. (Marshall) The ethical debate in this instance include normative, which determines the right course of action using ethics, and applied, which helps establish what feats need to take place to resolve this case. Ethics is called for in this situation because the issue involves an imposition of rights of Facebook’s users, which is unethical. It is unethical for two reasons. One, Facebook founder, Zuckerberg, and staff imposed the new Terms of Service on users instantaneously. When ever a business alters the rights of its customers, it needs to implement it in a way that does not completely overwhelm its customers. Such a demand could cripple business, especially in regards to the severity of the issue. Facebook took away users rights fast without time for users to process the impact, or to disagree with it. That is an unethical practice. The second reason as to why the new Terms of Service is morally wrong is because it aims to protect the employers of Facebook rather than the users themselves. It is a means for the staff members to shield themselves from lawsuits whether it is necessary or unnecessarily over users’ photos or information that travels the Facebook. It is evident in the first sentence that ethics are being tried: “You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license…” (Marshall). The intensity of the words used to make their point is enough to highlight the unethical essence of it. Take, for example, irrevocable, which is defined as “not possible to revoke” (Irrevocable). That in itself is enough to make multiple Facebook users upset. Not to mention what follows when they state: “to copy…publish…modify…distribute” (Marshall). Not only are they making it impossible for users to argue their rights over their own ideas, photos and comments made on Facebook, but Facebook employees have the ability to distribute the information to whomever or whoever they want. Lets, for a second, take a look at how Facebook must view this change. Its users consistently sue Facebook. Of course they will, due to the fact that it deals with people’s personal comments and photos. Not to mention the value Facebook holds in the presence of its investors. “The company's revenue is secret--estimates for 2009 range from $300 million to $500 million--and there are no big publicly traded social networking sites for comparison” (Bertoni). The secrecy did not stop businessmen from applying a formula used similarly for the search engine site, Google, in 2004. The results were that the “extrapolated value of Facebook: $7.9 billion” (Bertoni), which makes it a target of users to attain money. From a business standpoint, Facebook employers are smart in the fact that they want to stop users from suing Facebook. Lawsuits take time, money and effort to thwart. However, from a user’s point-of-view, the lack of respect witnessed in the new Terms of Service for their rights is an unethical issue that needs resolved. Although, the likelihood that Facebook employers will not abuse the terms (turning their defense into an offense) by selling material they obtain from Facebook to other businesses is small. But they could essentially do is sell a user’s photo and it could end up in a magazine ad. The user would be helpless to reverse or stop it. What could be worse? The fact that as long as these Terms of Service are executed and users accept them, the terms last forever. That includes well after the user deletes his or her profile. The user may not find their photo in a magazine tomorrow, but it could be there twenty years from now making the Terms of Service unethical in regards to appropriate business practices by Facebook. Facebook is not just a social-networking website, but a fully-equipped business that has consumers like any other, and with that identity comes the ethical issues that deal directly with it. The abrupt instigation of the new Terms of Service that removes the rights of its users from the users’ very own material, photos and videos is unethical. The employer’s of Facebook are attempting at putting their well-being over their users, even going so far as to perpetually own the users rights with the ability to sell them at their whim. Works Cited Bertoni, Steven. "How Much is Facebook Worth?." Forbes. N.p., Jan. 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. . Carlson, Nicholas. "At Last- The Full Story of How Facebook was Founded." Business Insider. N.p., 5 Mar. 2010. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. . "Irrevocable." Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2011. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. . Marshall, Jack. "Science and Technology." Ethics Scoreboard. N.p., 4 Mar. 2009. Web. 11 Apr. 2011. . Read More