Home » Posts tagged 'digital ethics'
Tag Archives: digital ethics
Paying Your Way to the Top
CASE STUDY: The Ethics of Microtransactions in Video Games
Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies
Over the span of a few decades, the gaming industry has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar industry titan. This growth can be attributed to the increasing growth of internet speeds that allow for players to connect seamlessly to multiplayer games. As broadband speeds have improved and next-gen consoles have become equipped with better hardware to take advantage of such speeds, downloading new content during video game play onto PCs and video game consoles have become increasingly common. These are often referred to as “microtransactions,” or “anything you pay extra for in a video game outside of the initial purchase” (Makuch, 2017). These extra payments within the game may grant players cosmetic items to equip their character with, new maps to play on, or in one of the most controversial cases, game-altering boosts for players when playing online with others.
As microtransactions began to seep into mainstream video games, developers and publishers immediately saw a new opportunity to generate more revenue from an untapped player base that wasn’t done throwing money into the game. New forms of microtransactions started to take shape in later years in the form of DLC (Downloadable Content) packages, in-game season passes to new content, and “loot boxes” or “loot crates.” The latter in particular has sparked increasing controversy after its implementation in games such as Star Wars Battlefront II in 2017. The developers of Battlefront II assured the fan base that all future content for the game would be free for everyone; they didn’t mention, however, that the game would include a loot crate system that could heavily influence the gameplay when playing online against other players. Players who choose not to spend additional money in the game to buy loot crates may find themselves putting in hours upon hours into the game in hopes that they can “level up” various aspects of their character to equal the accomplishments and abilities of other players. Some worry that others who choose to spend additional money in-game on loot crates are “quite literally pay[ing] money for statistical advantages” (Alexandra, 2017).
As a result, the game faced mass criticism and backlash claiming that the game at its very core was driven by an exploitive system that made the game “pay-to-win.” As one gamer said on behalf of the community: “We don’t like missing out, we want things we paid for to be complete, we especially don’t like to think that someone with more cash/naivety could skip the hard work we put in” (Meer, 2017). Essentially, players are concerned with ethical issues of fairness and equality. As many view video games as a way to unwind and escape the pressures of the real world, worries over whether one’s playing skill can ever equal those with more expendable income may start affecting gamers’ “real” lives. Furthermore, the controversy of loot crates became more complex for another reason: “When you buy one, you don’t know what you’ll get. Sometimes you get something good. Sometimes it’s bad,” which means that some players end up spending large sums of money in the hopes of receiving something good without receiving proportionate pay-off (Takahashi, 2017). Hawaiian State Representative Chris Lee even addressed this issue of uncertain payoff in a Reddit post stating, “these kinds of loot boxes and microtransactions are explicitly designed to prey upon and exploit human psychology in the same way casino games are so designed” (Lee, 2017). The association between microtransactions and the troublesome addiction that could come from gambling in a competitive environment only adds fuel to the fire in the debate for loot crates and microtransactions in general.
Proponents for microtransactions claim that some good can come out from these types of systems placed within video games. For example, some DLCs that are released during a game’s life cycle may be available at no cost to players because it is subsidized by microtransactions. Such surprise purchases is claimed by some defenders as a feature that “has kept the active community interested, and with more players than ever it keeps things interesting for new and old players alike” (Daniel, 2017). Furthermore, it could also be argued that by including game-altering items in for-purchase loot crates, players that simply do not have enough time to play are able to catch up and be on a level playing field with players that have seemingly endless time to devote to the game. This not only gives them a fighting chance against other gamers when playing online, allowing for the enjoyable experience they bought the game for in the first place, but it is also useful for teams – if one member has less time for progression-based rewards, all they need to go is make a quick purchase and they don’t have to worry about dragging the whole team of gamers down.
Developers who place loot box systems within their games have pointed out that they do not require players to purchase microtransactions. For example, loot boxes that can be purchased with real cash can also be acquired by playing the game for extended periods of time. The methods that players could use to unlock or gain loot boxes vary by game, with some requiring earning a set amount of in-game currency to unlock a loot box and others giving out loot boxes as a random reward for completing multiplayer matches or certain challenges. Overall, these developers insinuate that there is no real controversy at all since it is a matter of individual players’ free choice of how to go about acquiring game advantages. Furthermore, the inclusion of loot crates is legitimated by basic economic principles: if there was no demand and no one was buying them, they wouldn’t bother supplying them in their game design.
Many video games today have a microtransaction system in place to take advantage of an additional revenue stream. Future game releases will surely continue this trend of enticing players to make additional purchases in pursuit of the thrills and accomplishment they seek in gameplay. Can game designers find a way to incentivize players to make meaningful in-game purchases without compromising the ethical values of fairness in competitive games?
Discussion Questions:
- What are the purposes of multiplayer online video games? What ethical values underwrite multiplayer game play?
- What are the central values in conflict when it comes to the controversy over incorporate microtransactions, especially loot crates, into multiplayer online video games?
- Do you think the responsibility for resolving the microtransaction controversy lies with game developers or game players? What kind of solutions would you suggest for either side?
- Alternatively, is this a dilemma that can be solved in the private sphere or is there a point in which the government should regulate the gaming industry, perhaps like it might regulate gambling? What might this look like?
Further Information:
Alexandra, H. (2017, November 11). “Star Wars Battlefront II Lets You Pay Real Money For Multiplayer Advantages.” Available at: https://kotaku.com/star-wars-battlefront-ii-lets-you-pay-real-money-for-mu-1820333246
Daniel. (2017, November 1). “In Defense of Micro-transactions and Loot Boxes.” Available at: https://breech.co/games/defense-micro-transactions-loot-boxes/
Lee, C. (2017) “R/gaming – The State of Hawaii announces action to address predatory practices at Electronic Arts and other companies.” Available at: https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/7elin7/the_state_of_hawaii_announces_action_to_address/dq62w5m/
Makuch, E. (2017, November 14). “Microtransactions, Explained: Here’s What You Need To Know.” Available at: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/microtransactions-explained-heres-what-you-need-to/1100-6456995/
Meer, Alec. (2017, November 15). “How Loot Crates and Unlocks Really Work in Star Wars Battlefront 2.” Available at: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/11/15/star-wars-battlefront-2-loot-crates-explained/
Takahashi, Dean. (2017, December 22). “The DeanBeat: The Tragedy of the Star Wars: Battlefront II Loot Crates.” Available at: https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/17/the-deanbeat-the-tragedy-of-the-star-wars-battlefront-ii-loot-crates/
Williams, M. (2017, October 11). “The Harsh History Of Gaming Microtransactions: From Horse Armor to Loot Boxes.” Available at: https://www.usgamer.net/articles/the-history-of-gaming-microtransactions-from-horse-armor-to-loot-boxes
Authors:
William Cuellar, Kat Williams, & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
May 18, 2020
This case study is supported by funding from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the Center for Media Engagement. They can be used in unmodified PDF form for classroom or educational settings. For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Center for Media Engagement.
The Ethical Study of Digital Fan Culture
The Center for Media Engagement and Media Ethics Initiative Present:
Cloak of Invisibility:
Perceived Privacy and the Ethical Study of Digital Fan Culture
Dr. Suzanne Scott
Assistant Professor of Radio-Television-Film
University of Texas at Austin
March 26 (Tuesday) ¦ 3:30-4:30PM ¦ CMA 5.136
What ethical challenges arise when scholars research the passionate fan communities that surround popular films, games, or books? Because many academics studying fan culture self-identify as fans and also participate in the fan communities they study, there has long been an unspoken “fans first” policy governing approaches to ethics in the field. But what happens when we ethically feel we owe our research subjects more protections than those required by our Internal Review Boards (IRB), and if so, what motivates this and would these protections meaningfully look like? This presentation will contextualize ongoing ethical debates around whether fan discourse and forms of textual production (like fanfiction or fanart) should be conceptually approached as “texts” or “people.” Through a survey of these histories and core ethical debates, we will explore several interrelated issues ranging from the perceived privacy of fan communities to the ethical best practices of researching industry/fan interactions through contemporary case studies.
Dr. Suzanne Scott is an assistant professor in the Department of Radio-TV-Film at the University of Texas at Austin. Her research and teaching interests include fan studies, media convergence, digital and participatory culture, social media, transmedia storytelling, comic book culture, and gender studies. Dr. Scott’s current book project, Fake Geek Girls: Fandom, Gender, and the Convergence Culture Industry (NYU Press, April 2019), considers the gendered tensions underpinning the media industry’s embrace of fans as demographic tastemakers, professionals, and promotional partners within convergence culture.
The Media Ethics Initiative is part of the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin. Follow MEI and CME on Facebook for more information. Media Ethics Initiative events are free and open to the public.
Media Freedom and the Middle East
The Center for Media Engagement and Media Ethics Initiative Present:
Media Freedom and the Middle East: Pursuing a Self-Regulatory Approach in Qatar
Associate Professor of Journalism
University of Texas at Austin
February 19 (Tuesday) ¦ 3:30-4:30PM ¦ BMC 5.208
Laws throughout the Middle East and North Africa dramatically limit freedom of expression by prohibiting journalists from engaging in basic newsgathering functions, including taking video and photos in public. Historically, journalists and the general public alike have faced potential criminal punishment for violation of these laws, which also often prohibit the publication of information deemed offensive, embarrassing or sensitive. Recently, however, Qatar has begun to explore ways to promote media freedom and Western investment in media through the initiation of the Qatar Media Hub. Organizations operating through the QMH would ascribe to a code of professional ethics as a means of regulation, potentially taking them outside the scope of traditional criminal law. During a recent consulting trip to the country, I urged government leaders to adopt this self-regulatory approach in lieu of traditional government regulation as a means of advancing free expression. My current work explores the benefits of ethical self-regulation as well as global approaches to media self-regulation in the hope of drafting a workable model for Qatar’s new initiative.
Dr. Amy Kristin Sanders is an award-winning former journalist, licensed attorney and associate professor. Before joining the faculty of The University of Texas at Austin, she taught for more than four years at Northwestern University’s campus in Doha, Qatar. Her research focuses on the intersection of law and new technology as it relates to media freedom. Specifically, she focuses on international and comparative media law and policy issues, including media freedom, Internet governance, social media and digital literacy. She has authored more than 20 scholarly articles in numerous law reviews and mass communication journals, and she is a co-author of the widely recognized casebook “First Amendment and the Fourth Estate: The Law of Mass Media.”
The Media Ethics Initiative is part of the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin. Follow MEI and CME on Facebook for more information. Media Ethics Initiative events are open and free to the public.
“One Does Not Simply Create a Meme”
CASE STUDY: The Ethics of Internet Memes
Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies
Photo: Knowyourmeme
Most people could never predict that they would become a viral internet sensation overnight. Canadian teenager Ghyslain Raza never thought about this possibility of digital fame until one day he found that a video he created of himself fighting imaginary enemies with a golf-ball retriever had been uploaded on Kazaa, a collective file-sharing network. According to BBC, classmates discovered this video on a school computer and shared it, reaching around 900 million views. It was labeled as the most viral video in 2006 (Tunison, 2017). The “Star Wars Kid” video continued to be shared, sometimes remixed and edited with funny music and visual effects. Ghyslain Raza had unintentionally become a meme.
There are many internet personalities who would relish in the digital limelight that Raza inadvertently stepped into, but he did not. The sudden popularity of his video caused a severe psychological effect on Raza. He immediately faced aggressive bullying at school. “In the common room, students climbed onto tabletops to insult me,” he shared in an interview with L’Actualite. “People made fun of my physical appearance and my weight. I was labeled the ‘Star Wars Kid’… [they] were telling me to commit suicide.” Raza eventually dropped out of school before spending time in a psychiatric institution for severe depression. His parents sued the classmates who uploaded the video without permission, which led to further bullying after some in the media claimed that the family was “greedy” (Zimmerman, 2013). Raza eventually overcame the negative repercussions of his unwanted celebrity. He went on to obtain a law degree from McGill University and has been a public supporter for victims of cyberbullying.
Photo: quickmeme.com
Raza’s experience with becoming a meme sparked debate over the ethical concerns of meme creation and sharing, especially when they use images or videos that depict identifiable individuals. Many memes originate from video or pictures being “repurposed” for the goals of the meme creator, including political commentary, satire, and “lulz.” Whitney Phillips and Ryan M. Milner, co-authors of The Ambivalent Internet, emphasize that memes are never “just” memes: “The problem is that the ‘just’ framing (just joking, just a meme on the internet, just a new kind of hazing ritual) posits what we describe… as a fetishized gaze, one that obscures everything but the joke itself” (Phillips & Milner, 2017). They argue that regardless of the medium, real people are almost always affected by a meme, whether directly (as in Raza’s case) or indirectly (in the case of a general racist meme).
However, it is the age of the Internet, and who knows how all the videos or images that we post or comment on will be taken by others. Screenshots and online archives simply continue the permanence and ability of others to comment on this content, often in ways we can’t anticipate. The consequences of being immortalized in a popular meme are difficult to predict, given the ever-evolving use of the meme. Sometimes, these unintended uses of images, videos, or other content seems to be a boon to the unsuspecting person depicted in the meme. Kyle Craven, better known as the subject of the “Bad Luck Brian” meme, has made “between $15,000 and $20,000 in [three years] between licensing deals and T-shirts” (Garsd, 2015). “Overly Attached Girlfriend,” a.k.a. Laina Morris, used her meme fame to launch her comedic acting career. Memes can even be considered a part of modern language, signaling a way of communicating among a technological in-group using digital discourse. Above all, memes strive to be clever, creative, and humorous in their appropriation of content and images that most likely where not intended to be comedic in that specific way.
As with many internet phenomena, meme creation often foregrounds a conflict between the freedom of expression of creative meme makes and the privacy concerns of those that may find themselves featured in the meme. How much control should we have over our images and videos, and at what cost to the creativity of the digital world?
Discussion Questions:
- What are the ethical issues with taking a picture or video and making it into a humorous meme?
- What concerns about consent are implicated in making image-based memes? Are these concerns with consent present in our other commentary or use of public images?
- Does the intention of the meme maker matter? Does it matter if they do not know (or care) about the subject depicted in the image or video content that the meme is based upon?
- What ethical guidelines would you propose for those creating image-based memes? How might these avoid harmful consequences or ethical transgressions—foreseen or unforeseen?
Further Information:
Garsd, Jasmine. “Internet Memes and ‘The Right To Be Forgotten.’” NPR, March 3, 2015. Available at: https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2015/03/03/390463119/internet-memes-and-the-right-to-be-forgotten
Phillips, Whitney and Milner, Ryan. “The Harvard Case Shows a Meme Is Never ‘Just’ A Meme.” Motherboard, June 6, 2017. Available at: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zmen4y/the-harvard-case-shows-a-meme-is-never-just-a-meme
Phillips, Whitney and Milner, Ryan. “The Complex Ethics of Online Memes.” The Ethics Centre, October 26, 2016. Available at: http://www.ethics.org.au/on-ethics/blog/october-2016/the-complex-ethics-of-online-memes
Tunison, Mike. “The incredibly sad saga of Star Wars Kid.” The Daily Dot, August 6, 2017. Available at: https://www.dailydot.com/unclick/star-wars-kid-meme/
Weisblott, Marc. “‘Star Wars Kid’ goes on media blitz 10 years later.” Canada.com, May 9, 2013. Available at: https://o.canada.com/entertainment/celebrity/star-wars-kid-goes-on-a-media-blitz-10-years-later
Zimmerman, Neetzan. “‘Star Wars Kid’ Breaks Silence, Says Online Fame Made Him Suicidal.” Gawker, May 10, 2013. Available at: https://gawker.com/star-wars-kid-breaks-silence-says-online-fame-made-h-499800192
Authors:
Alex Purcell & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
January 14, 2018
Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom or educational uses. Please email us and let us know if you found them useful! For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.
Just Do It?
CASE STUDY: Nike, Social Justice, and the Ethics of Branding
Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies
ViktorCylo / CC BY 3.0 / Modified
In September of 2018, Nike unveiled their 30th anniversary “Just Do It” campaign, featuring prominent athletes such as Serena Williams, LeBron James, Lacey Baker, and Odell Beckham Jr. Also featured in the series is former San Francisco 49ers quarterback turned activist Colin Kaepernick, who has been a controversial figure since early August of 2016 when he protested racial injustice in America by sitting and later kneeling during the national anthem at the start of football games. Kaepernick’s Nike advertisement, which he posted to social media sites on September 3, 2018, displays a close-up image of his face with the words “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything” written across the image. Some have praised the advertisement as taking a stand in the nationwide debate over the state of minority rights while others have been concerned with Nike’s movement into the arena of political advocacy.
Gino Fisanotti, Nike’s vice president of brand marketing for North America, defended the company’s featuring of Kaepernick, who has not played in the NFL since the 2016 season when he refused a contract with the 49ers: “We believe Colin is one of the most inspirational athletes of this generation, who has leveraged the power of sport to help move the world forward.” Additionally, many high-profile athletes and celebrities have voiced their support for Nike and Kaepernick, including LeBron James and Serena Williams, both outspoken figures about social justice in their own right. “He’s done a lot for the African American community, and its cost him a lot. It’s sad,” Williams said of Kaepernick. “Having a huge company back him,” she continued, “could be a controversial reason for this company, but they’re not afraid. I feel like that was a really powerful statement to a lot of other companies.”
Other observers see Nike’s move from the commercial to the political as potentially concerning. Michael Serazio worries that this is just another sophisticated trick from a corporate powerhouse: “Getting us to think we’re making a statement by buying Nike is the long con advertising has played, and it has played it well.” Increasingly, brands are giving in to a recent demand for politicization, forcing consumers to question the political participation of various corporations. Some argue that Nike is using a popular movement to increase its own sales, and taking advantage of the prestige and celebrity status of its minority athletes while doing so. Another worry is that it distracts attention from how Nike products are made, often by workers in difficult working conditions in developing countries. As Serazio puts it, the new campaign risks diverting our focus from “the marginalized who make stuff rather than the posturing it affords those privileged enough to own it.”
The advertisement campaign is a risky move for Nike, who might garner heightened attention to its products and brand, but who also runs the risk of alienating part of its consumer base by becoming too politicized. Swaths of the football-watching public, and public at large, are divided by the anthem protests carried on by Kaepernick and others. By featuring the originator of this series of protests, many fans might view Nike as standing with black athletes and their concerns. Yet others may view the advertisement as an attempt to profit off of a protest that strikes at the heart of patriotic values that some hold dear. Some owners of Nike products even illustrated their disgust with the campaign by burning their shoes, and then subsequently posting the flaming images on social media. So far, however, Nike has not sacrificed anything due to the gamble that this advertising campaign represents: Nike stock is up 5% since the advertisement hit the public, representing $6 billion increase in Nike’s market value.
Nike’s campaign was meant to garner attention and make a statement on its 30th anniversary. It succeeded at accomplishing these goals. But many are still wondering: was Nike primarily interested in taking a courageous stand on an important political issue of our time, or were they simply using Kaepernick as a clever ploy to sell more shoes?
Discussion Questions:
- Should a company like Nike get involved in matters of political controversy and social justice?
- Is Nike misusing Kaepernick and the NFL protests in its recent campaign? If you judge this to be the case, what other ways could Nike do if they wanted to bring attention to these issues and protests?
- Do you think that these advertisements will hurt Nike’s brand or bottom line? Do you think this is an important ethical consideration for Nike?
- Should companies take stands on controversial debates orbiting around justice and the public good in their advertisement campaigns? Why or why not?
- Nike clearly has the ability—and right—to take a stand on this issue. What should the virtuous consumer do in reacting to Nike’s campaign? What about if they disagree with Nike’s stance?
Further Information:
Anderson, Mae. “Good for business? Nike gets political with Kaepernick ad.” September 4, 2018. Available at: https://www.apnews.com/6aaced14b24d4622aefeb44d3b17c2d6
Belvedere, Matthew J. “Sorkin: Nike’s Kaepernick ad decision was based on ‘attracting big name athletes’ who side with his cause.” September 7, 2018. Available at: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/sorkin-nike-kaepernick-ad-based-on-attracting-big-name-athletes.html
Boren, Cindy. “As Trump tweets, Colin Kaepernick shares new Nike ad that reportedly will air during NFL opener.” Washington Post. September 5, 2018. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/09/05/trump-says-nike-is-getting-absolutely-killed-over-colin-kaepernick-ad-renews-attack-on-nfl-players/
Reints, Renae. “Colin Kaepernick Pushes Nike’s Market Value Up $6 Billion, to an All-Time High.” Fortune. September 23, 2018. Available at: http://fortune.com/2018/09/23/nike-market-value-colin-kaepernick-ad/
Rovell, Darren. “Colin Kaepernick part of Nike’s 30th anniversary of ‘Just Do It’ campaign.” ESPN. September 3, 2018. Available at: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/24568359/colin-kaepernick-face-nike-just-do-30th-anniversary-campaign
Serazio, Michael. “Nike isn’t trying to be ‘woke.’ It’s trying to sell shoes.” Washington Post. September 5, 2018. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/09/05/nike-isnt-trying-be-woke-its-trying-sell-shoes/
Authors:
Holland J. Smith & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
September 24, 2018
Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom or educational uses. Please email us and let us know if you found them useful! For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.
Does the Photo Fit the News?
CASE STUDY: The Ethics of Powerful Images in the Immigration Debate
Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies
Sharon Lauricella, Ph.D., University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Photo: John Moore / Modified
In June 2018, discourse around immigration to the U.S. came to a peak when award-winning Getty Images photographer John Moore captured an image of a distraught, crying, two-year-old Honduran child beside her mother and a U.S. border agent. The image of the toddler, with her shoelaces removed and mouth agape in a wail, came to represent Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy toward undocumented immigrants; thousands of children, parents, and family members were separated at the U.S. border as a form of punishment for attempting to cross illegally.
The photo galvanized the public to contact both Republican and Democratic representatives with their objections, and also inspired people to donate to legal defense services for refugees. The emotional photograph had such a significant public impact that shortly after its publication, Trump issued an unusual retreat and ended the hardline policy of separating families.
Photo: Time.com
Just over a week after the photo was taken, and subsequent to its viral spread, Time magazine’s cover of June 21, 2018 featured a photo illustration of the child, without her mother or the border agent, opposite an image of a menacing Trump staring down at her. The caption read, “Welcome to America.”
When Moore took the photo, it was unknown whether the mother, Sandra Sanchez, and her daughter, Yanela, would be separated during the immigration process. Subsequent to the publication of the original photo, it was discovered that the child and her mother were detained without being separated. Carlos Ruiz, the border patrol agent whose legs are in the original photo, told CBS news that upon Sanchez’s illegal crossing, he detained her and her daughter for a formal search, which took “less than two minutes.” Ruiz reported that as soon as the brief search was completed, Sanchez picked up her daughter, who immediately stopped crying.
The Trump administration harshly criticized Time, accusing it of running “fake news” given that the child in the photo illustration and her mother were not separated at the time that the photograph was taken, nor were they separated afterward. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich called for Time to apologize to Trump, and Press Secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted that Democrats and the media were guilty of exploiting the little girl to “push their agenda” to revise Trump’s hardline approach to immigration. Trump also weighed in, tweeting that the Democrats have no intentions of resolving this “decades old problem,” and that “we can pass great legislation [on immigration] after the Red Wave,” referring to the then upcoming elections in November 2018. Other news media outlets argued that printing the photo was a blunder on the part of Time, and that the intended effect of the image “oversold” the problem of families detained and separated at the border.
Time issued a correction which made clear that the child was not taken away from her mother by border agents. However, Time defended its decision to run the cover’s photo illustration, indicating that the image of the distraught child is representative of the thousands of immigrant children separated from their parents and of whom there are not any photographs. Time’s editor-in-chief, Edward Felsenthal, issued a statement arguing that the photo captured the terror of what was indeed happening at the border and in detainee centers:
The June 12 photograph of the 2-year-old Honduran girl became the most visible symbol of the ongoing immigration debate in America for a reason: Under the policy enforced by the administration, prior to its reversal this week, those who crossed the border illegally were criminally prosecuted, which in turn resulted in the separation of children and parents. Our cover and our reporting capture the stakes of this moment.
Felsenthal and those supporting publication of the cover argue that the image of the toddler on its cover was representative of immigration-related political discourse, and that the photo illustration conveyed contemporary treatment of undocumented immigrants. Alongside government-issued photographs of children in cage-like pens in detainee centers, the photo on the cover of Time served as a poignant representation of the difficulties experienced by undocumented immigrants.
Moore is an experienced photojournalist and had covered immigration issues previously. He expressed that he captured a raw and honest image that did much to publicize the terror experienced by many undocumented immigrants. He said he believes that his job as a photojournalist is to inform and report what is happening, and that when he took the photo, he feared that the child and her mother would be separated in the detainment process. Moore also argues that in his work, “it is important to humanize an issue that is often reported in statistics.” He issued no objections to the use of his photograph as it appeared on the Time cover.
Discussion Questions:
- Moore’s photo served to educate and galvanize the public in relation to immigration issues. Does the fact that the toddler was not separated from her mother matter, given that thousands of other children were?
- Viewers of the Time cover could assume that the toddler was separated from her mother while being detained at the U.S. border. Given that this was not the case, should Time have run the cover with the photo illustration featuring this child?
- What ethical values serve as the basis for photojournalism? What interests are often in conflict in photojournalism?
- What values are in conflict in the use of Moore’s photo? How might you best balance the conflicting interests if you were an editor?
Further Information:
Kirby, J. (2018, June 22). “Time’s crying girl photo controversy, explained.” Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/22/17494688/time-magazine-cover-crying-girl-photo-controversy-family-separation
Blake, A. (2018, June 22). “Time magazine’s major mistake on the crying-girl cover.” The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/22/time-magazines-major-screw-up-on-the-crying-girl-cover/
CBS News. (2018, June 22). “Crying girl in iconic image was never separated from mother, ICE says.” https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-patrol-agent-involved-dramatic-photo-girl-crying-at-border-speaks-out/
Dwyer, C. (2018, June 22). “Crying toddler on widely shared Time cover was not separated from mother.” NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/06/22/622611182/crying-toddler-on-widely-shared-time-cover-was-not-separated-from-mother
Holson, L. M. & Garcia, S. E. (2018, June 22). “She became a face of family separation at the border. But she’s still with her mother.” The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/22/us/immigration-toddler-trump-media.html
Time Staff. (21 June 2018). “The story behind Time’s Trump ‘Welcome to America’ cover.” Time. Retrieved from: http://time.com/5317522/donald-trump-border-cover/
Schmidt, S. & Phillips, K. (2018, June 22). “The crying Honduran girl on the cover of Time was not separated from her mother.” The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/22/the-crying-honduran-girl-on-the-cover-of-time-was-not-separated-from-her-mother-father-says/
Cases produced in cooperation with the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative, the author, and the University of Texas at Austin. They are produced for educational uses only. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission or cost for classroom or educational uses. For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.
Digital Immortality on an App
CASE STUDY: The Ethics of Legacy Chatbots
Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies
The death of a loved one is a traumatic experience in a person’s life. But does it really signal the end of one’s interactions with the deceased? Some companies, are looking to technology to give us a new hope of talking to the dead. Eternime wants to create a platform that allows for friends and relatives of deceased loved ones to hold conversations with an artificial intelligence powered “chatbot” and avatar that resembles the past person. Eugenia Kuyda, a co-founder of the AI startup Luka, created a digital “version” of her deceased friend Roman, as well as an app-based chatbot version of the celebrity Prince (MacDonald, 2016). These legacy chatbot programs function by using advanced computing algorithms and access to a range of digital records of the person they are simulating, including Twitter posts, Facebook posts, text messages, Fitbit data, and more. While technology has not yet advanced enough to create chatbots that resemble specific people with complete accuracy, companies like Eternime and Luka are working hard to perfect it. Eternime is allowing interested customers to sign up now and provide information to the website so that the company will have all the information they need to create a carbon copy of a user in the future. When the technology catches up with the idea, people will be able to communicate with their deceased friends and relatives. Will this concept ease the loss of a loved one or will it damage those grieving?
One of the challenges that people face when losing a loved one is the loss they feel. Mourners are sometimes left with little reminding them of the deceased person beyond a few photographs, possessions, or memories of the deceased. While these things can be valuable to people that have lost someone close, they may not feel like enough. This is where Eternime is hoping to assist. If the chatbots emulate the deceased persons as well as some expect, these conversations might feel as authentic as chat conversations with the real person. Some even argue that the artificial intelligence powered chatbot may provide a more truthful representation of a person’s life than the person him- or herself. Simon Parkin believes “Eterni.me and other similar services counter the fallibility of human memory; they offer a way to fix the details of a life as time passes.” Being able to learn the experiences of a person now deceased could be invaluable to a grieving person. Eternime’s co-creator Marius Ursache, believes that Eternime “could be a virtual library of humanity” (Parkin, 2015).
Leaving a legacy is important to many people because it ensures their life has importance even after they die. Most people achieve this by having children to share their stories or by creating something that will be used or remembered after they die. However, Eternime provides a new avenue to store a legacy. Ursache asserts that the purpose of Eternime is “about creating an interactive legacy, a way to avoid being totally forgotten in the future ” (Parkin, 2015). However, critics argue that this may not be a legacy that you want to leave. Laura Parker argues that “an avatar with an approximation of your voice and bone structure, who can tell your great-grandchildren how many Twitter followers you had, doesn’t feel like the same thing [as the traditional ways of leaving a legacy]” (Parker, 2014).
Others worry that platforms like Eternime will not assist those dealing with grief, but rather prevent them from accepting the loss and moving on. Joan Berzoff, a specialist in end-of-life issues, believes that “a post-death avatar goes against all we know about bereavement” (Parker, 2014). Living life with an algorithm that is merely attempting to mimic a deceased person could distance a user from reality, a reality that includes the fact that when a person dies, their biological presence and form are gone forever. Applications like Eternime could prevent users from accepting the reality of their situation and cause the users additional grief.
Another issue with chatbots of deceased people is the fact that a program would have to synthesize and access large amounts of private and personal information. Algorithms that mimic the user may be very advanced and realistic. However, they will never be perfect. For example, people often keep certain information secret or only share it with certain people. Will the AI chatbot know how to discreetly continue such practices of strategic information presentation, or maintain lies or secrets that the deceased lived with? The chatbot may pick up information or behavior from a text to a close friend and share it with a child. While this could lead to an honest-talking and transparent version of the deceased individual, it would not represent the deceased person in the way they would might wish to be represented, judging on their information sharing practices in their past interactions. Would we find that we judge a deceased individual differently based upon how a less-nuanced, but perhaps more truthful, chatbot simulates them after they are dead?
The technology to achieve the goal of legacy chatbots that are indistinguishable from real humans is not yet a reality, but it will be soon. The idea of deceased people being immortalized on the internet or in an AI-driven program gives us a digital way to talk to the dead. Will this technology lessen the burden of losing a loved one or make it harder to accept their loss? Will it create legacies of people to be past down to future generations, or tarnish our perception of people of the past?
Discussion Questions:
- Do you think it’s realistic, given enough person data, to create an interactive simulation of that person in chatbot form?
- Would legacy chatbots be a helpful thing for those mourning the loss of a loved one? Might they help new people learn about the deceased person?
- Does the deceased person have a right to any privacy of their information? Should someone make a chatbot of a deceased person without their permission?
- Could a deceased individual be harmed by truthful things that their legacy chatbot says on their behalf?
- What ethical interests are in conflict with legacy chatbots? How might you balance these issues, should people and companies want to build such bots?
Further Information:
Hamilton, Isobel. “These 2 tech founders lost their friends in tragic accidents. Now they’ve built AI chatbots to give people life after death,” Business Insider, November 17, 2018. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/eternime-and-replika-giving-life-to-the-dead-with-new-technology-2018-11
MacDonald, Cheyenne. “Would you resurrect your dead friend as an AI? Try out ‘memorial’ chatbot app – and you can even talk to a virtual version of Prince,” Daily Mail, October 6, 2016. Available at: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3826208/Would-resurrect-dead-friend-AI-Try-memorial-chatbot-app-talk-virtual-version-Prince.html
Parker, Laura. “How to become virtually immortal,” The New Yorker, April 4, 2018. Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/how-to-become-virtually-immortal
Parkin, Simon. “Back-up brains: The era of digital immortality,” BBC, January 23, 2015. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150122-the-secret-to-immortality
Authors:
Colin Frick & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
December 4, 2018
Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They are produced for educational use only. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom or educational uses. Please email us and let us know if you found them useful! For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.
