#Gamergate

There are obvious Ethical concerns when it comes to exposing someone's personal life for any reason at all, let alone to gain online fame and start a propaganda.  Until today, the reasoning behind the entire controversy has yet to be explained.  the #gamergate hashtag spiraled out of control because of speculations and hearsay.
there is also an ethical issue with gamer journalism and corporate relationships.  Journalists are supposed to adhere to the ethical value of telling the truth.  and when writing about something you don't necessarily believe in just to promote a friend's new gaming product is misleading and a journalistic disaster.  Many journalists have to please the corporate powers which causes for public mistrust.

Social justice for Zoe and Anita is indeed a social responsibility for journalists and gamers and the public.  we have to protect the opportunity and freedom for women to be involved in whatever industry they are interested in.  Propaganda against Zoe started just because she's a woman, and because she created something different.  It was proven that she had no relationship with the journalist that rated her game at the time the article was published.  but all this information was irrelevant to those wanted to attack at no cost.   they violated the value not to harm others, and in Zoe's case she was harmed in many ways.

when Comparing Jackie's article and Zoe's case, they are entirely different.  Even if one can argue that Zoe instigated the propaganda to gain fame for her new game, she certainly did not intend to invite death threats.  Jackie failed to confirm her source and the information.

When advocating for a cause that one is passionate about and truly believes in, why is anonymity a necessity.  I'd say it loud and proud, use journalism as my tool and make true ethical points to persuade people.  Hiding behind the computer isn't ethical, the youth that started the revolutions in the middle east, didn't organize it on Facebook and watched the news later on their couches.  They started something and they finished it, they ousted dictators!  The value of transparency obviously wasn't a priority for those responsible for the attacks against Zoe.

Intel's removing of their advertising from Gamasutra was ethical given the magnitude of the gamer gate campaign and the direction it was taking.  Since it became about death threats, intel had to disassociate itself from the issue.  It is a large corporation representing a multifaceted industry all over the world, the last thing they need is to be involved in a depressing sexual scandal or an ethical issue regarding journalism.

Sony's The Interview

Sony’s initial decision to cancel the movie release was hasty and unethical.  The private information released shouldn’t have prompted such a violation of a basic human right: freedom of speech.  Some can argue that the movie release could have cost lives, since there were some violent threats, but we are the United States of America.  This country enjoys expert intelligence in counter terrorism and superior military technology.  So why did Sony feel vulnerable?  Their decision is unethical because it can easily set a precedent for more to be encouraged in attacking the U.S., and expect a weak reaction.

Sony employees are without a doubt entitled to privacy, but the second the send button is pressed, everyone knows our words are protected by a very thin wall.  a firewall.  And let’s be honest, hacking isn’t a new trend or a problem.  It’s prominent, it’s out there, it takes over our lives, the very reason the anti virus industry is booming.  Because of this, we have the professional and social responsibility to use caution using the internet and social media.  Kerr confirmed that because every aspect of our world is interconnected wirelessly, one can dream of remaining anonymous, because “it is a thing of the past”.  

Americans value privacy dearly, it is the very substance that protects us from an overpowering government.  (Though that has been heavily debated since the freedom of information act and NSA’s monitoring of phone calls) Hodges confirms “without some degree of privacy, civilized life would be impossible”  But with the speed in which our lives have been lifted to an unknown, floating and invisible world wide web, it has become increasingly difficult to contain.

The movie and its message, though fictional, prove to be very political.  could have Sony used an alias for the president and avoid many issues, yes.  Would the movie have made just as much projected profit? Absolutely!  So what was Sony’s message in all this?  many believe this propaganda was started internally.  Some can even argue it’s a form of an art.  The author’s attempt to be artistically free to create the story.  It is after all ethical for an artist to have the right to expression.  unrestricted expression.  But the meaning of art has been debated for hundreds of years.  Philosophers, artists and politicians alike have yet to agree on its meaning, it simply means some different to each and everyone of us.  Plato called poets the rebels of the first orders, he didn’t trust the power of the artist, he feared the influence of art in its simplest forms.  To contradict Plato, Tolstoy affirms that art is humanistic, it is the means in which the artist delivers his message, experiences and feelings.

In the press, Sony felt alone, the media was shameless, merciless and took advantage of every rumor.  And to add insult to injury, the film industry and the government sat back and watched it all unfold.  It is but ethical and an undeniable responsibility that the motion pictures association serve as the very support system Sony and its people needed.  Their governmental influence could have come in handy in making the decision to release.

It is unethical  to release the hacked information.  It is but a desperate move by the news outlets.  As Sorkin said, none of the information leaked threatened anyone’s life, mislead the public or harm anyone directly.  Juicy details of someone’s private life should remain for the tabloids or the real housewives shows.  The need for privacy ethically balances the common good in society, before it should be considered as an individual right. (Christians, 2010)

Behavior Marketing

blog 4

As a mom of a toddler, i am not surprised to learn of this kind of data mining by a big retailer such as Target.  In trying to have a baby, i started getting coupons, baby magazines and even samples in the mail before achieving a positive result.  It does put a mind in a whirlwind thinking of what else does the world know about my personal life?  On the other hand, i don’t mind saving money, so coupons are always good new to me.  But even better! coupons of products I usually buy is music to my ears.  At the end of the day, we are willingly giving away this information to these retailers just by shopping at their stores.  Because somewhere in the fine print on a receipt, there must be a clause about gathering information and the tradition in which we shop.  In my opinion, it is unethical if the information is used in anything other than customized marketing.  

Targeted marketing works, and it works because people respond to it.  We can assume that if this method wasn’t effective, companies wouldn’t use it as their best tool to attract shoppers.  I don’t see an ethical issue with it,  at the end of the day, we as shoppers always have the choice to go to any retailer we choose and make our purchases.  Nobody from Target has threatened my life in the past if i didn’t shop for diapers there.  It is however the means to the end that is unethical here, the way in which target gathers its information to send the coupons.  The bigger issue here is that most people don’t know the enormity of information gathered each time we spike the credit cards to pay.

The manager’s ethical obligation to the customer is apology which he made, followed by an investigation, which he also did.  I believe it was fulfilled.  At the management level, it is not clear that the manager could have been briefed on corporate’s style of marketing and data collection.  Therefore, an apology upfront was the perfect diffuser to the customer’s anger.

The mixing of targeted ads with random ones is unethical.  Target is still violating social norms by invading the privacy of its shoppers.  Many newly pregnant couples choose to keep the news secret until it is safe to share.  The fact that some computer network finds out before proud grand parents is outright unfair.

When dissecting Target’s practices, putting them through the TARES test, the claims are true, since the girl is indeed pregnant.  Claim is authentic based on information gathered from her shopping behavior.  However, it doesn’t treat the receiver with respect, since her privacy was invaded.  We can also see that there is no equity between the pregnant teen and Target, she is far from well versed in the world of data mining.  Not sure the ad has any social note at all, it is pure marketing.