What Would You Do?
1. You are a new waiter at a four-star restaurant. You and several other employees have been asked by your manager to begin posting positive messages about your dining experience at the restaurant on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Truth be told, the restaurant is living on its past reputation. The menu is boring, the food is overpriced, the carpet is worn thin, and the booths need to be repaired. You would not choose to dine at the restaurant. What would you do?
You do as your manager says. Because if you don't, you'll create a negative impression on your manager and this can effect yur growth in the company which no employee wishes for. You can trust in your company's product and blindly post the positive reviews. In turn, if the product is found to have defects or other issues, customers will lose faith in the company. But there is a flaw in here. The shoes seem to be pretty expensive for an ordinary person to own.
2. You are 30 minutes into a job interview for your dream job—one where your college education and experience can really be applied. So far everything is going well. However, the interviewer’s next question catches your breath and causes you to pause before you answer—” If I were to examine your social media postings, would I find anything that is embarrassing about you or that might indicate that you engaged in any illegal activities?” What would you say?
No you should not write/share your credentials (of anything) with anyone, no matter what best is served in your plate. Even if it is about your dream job sharing password is against IT ethics and this could be a test of yours to check whether you are aware about these things or not. And sharing password will mean that you are giving access to your personal information which can be misused.
4. You work in the human resources organization and found out through research on Facebook that a current job candidate married and divorced his high school sweetheart before graduating from college and once had his car repossessed. Is this valid grounds for dropping this candidate from further consideration? What would you do?
1. Step 1- Identifying the problem. The problem was with the candidate who had applied for the job and recruiter verified his face book account and came to decision that he was not suitable for the job because he was irresponsible person. Now it was the problem that whether to recruit the person by seeing his academics and the experience are reject him by his irresponsibility.
2. Step 2- Gathering the information
3. As my coworker gather all the relevant information from the face which detailed about his marital status and his car was repossessed. We also checked his academics and had a note about his experience and collected the information about his best performances in carrier.
4. Step 3- Consequences
5. By considering all the gathered information from the relevant sources I had noted down the pros and cons of the candidate. I had also rechecked his performance during the interview. This was one of the steps which are mostly important to take any best decision. I had done all the calculations about the person and benefits which are observed by the person and due to his irresponsibility what the problems are occurred in the organization.
6. Step 4- Decision making
7. As my co-worker who was the recruiter said that she would like to drop the person by his irresponsibility and I also concluded that he will not fit for this job because sometimes he missed important meetings due to his irresponsibility.
8. Step 5- Evaluate the decision
9. As I concluded that he was not fit for the job and I shared every aspect with my coworker about my analysis and gave the suggestion to drop that person because in future by his attitude our organization will face many problems.
Critical Thinking Question
Case 1: CDA Protects Social Media Companies
10. Do you believe that social media companies are doing enough to shut off the communications of terrorist groups? Do you have any ideas for actions they could take that would help solve the problem?
Ans: .The U.S. government’s response to terrorist social media use has been sustained and significant, and their response to state sponsored influence on Americans disjointed and perplexing. In both cases, government officials have pointed to social media companies asking why they would allow their platforms to be used for nefarious purposes. Social media companies realize the damage of these bad actors far too late.
11. Should U.S. anti-terrorism laws take precedence over the “safe harbor” provisions of the Communications Decency Act? Why or why not?
Ans: I think they should take precedence over the “safe harbor”. Some Social media companies have advanced better methods to certify account authenticity. However, the current level of authenticity on the Twitter platform is sub-optimal. I’d encourage Twitter to rapidly expand its verification to as many users as possible, as quickly as possible.
12. Do research to learn the current status of the Gonzalez and Pulse lawsuits were settled. Write a brief summary of your findings, and discuss if you are satisfied with the results.
Ans: In conclusion, some social media companies have done more than others to improve the safety and integrity of their platforms. Others have a lot of work to do to improve their platforms against bad actors. Social media companies should move aggressively to thwart terrorists and authoritarians exploiting their systems not only because it’s what’s best for their users and society, but because it’s good for business as well.
Case 2: Google Losing Revenue in Dispute over Placement of Ads
1. Should Google take a more active approach in censoring its content providers? If it does, is it possible that Google could run afoul of Title II of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and lose its legal immunity for the actions of its users?
Ans: The decision about the amount and extent
of censoring activities lies solely on the online service providers. There are
specifically two schools of thought in this regard. One school believes that
copyright infringement is a serious issue that needs to be strictly dealt with.
But given the vastness of the online space it becomes a difficult task to
monitor who copied from whom. Even detecting online copyright infringements may
take good amount of effort.
Another school of thought believes in open access of information. They believe that all creative activities and products are inevitably influenced by and derived from the present pool of human knowledge. So it makes no sense to prevent others from copying something by imposing copyright laws.
2. How might Google deploy advanced technologies to identify content that is objectionable?
Ans: Google is training computers to use Machine Learning to identify objectionable videos on You Tube. Google engineers are trying to train computers to grasp the problems of what makes certain videos objectionable. A racial remark in a hip-hop video can be tolerated, for example, but may be horrified to see it used in a video from a racist group.
3. Can/should Google provide advertisers with guarantees about what type of content their ads will appear next to? How could such guarantees be written so that they are enforceable?
Ans: Google has been putting a lot of work on cracking down on ad disapprovals. It has become stricter in order to regulate the quality if ads being shown to users. Google helps Advertisers by finding the customers that they actually target on.
For example Google has renamed their Home Services Ads as Google Local Services Ads (LSA) to reflect services that occur outside of customer’s home. In this the Ads doesn’t contain links websites and only have phone numbers as a form of communication.