Case Description
It was brought to attention in 2017 and recently resurfaced in February that individuals
witnessed videos on YouTube Kids that were displaying very malicious and
inappropriate content. The cartoons will begin to perform very inappropriate acts, some
displaying violence and others various different actions that should not be
viewed by children. Some of these videos will play the actual cartoons children
are intending to watch, but in the midst of their viewing the video will cut to
a short clip of a man instructing them to inflict pain on themselves. This man
will make terrible statements such as, “remember kids sideways for attention
long ways for results’ (Maheshwari).
There have been many cases but the
woman who originally allowed this issue to gain so much media attention,
pediatrician Dr. Free Hess, wrote a blog online speaking about the dangers of
these videos that later went viral. She was then interviewed by CBS and had this
to say about a particular video and YouTube’s efforts, “Looking at the
comments, it had been up for a while, and people had even reported it eight
months prior,” (Lewis). The specific video Dr. Hess was referring to was not
removed until her blog post went viral, causing even more negative buzz amongst
the public. This is especially an issue due to the fact that suicide is one the
three leading causes of death in children ages 5-14 (U.S. National Library of
Medicine). Fortunately for YouTube no
incidents of suicide or self-harm have been found to be directly related to
their videos, however the issue is still largely in play. The company has
repeatedly tried to reassure everyone that they are doing
everything in their power to crack down on these videos and make sure they are no
longer on their site. Many are very skeptical if they are being very meticulous
in their work because so many of these videos are still appearing on a daily
basis.
Stakeholders
The Stakeholders in this particular case include children
thirteen years old and younger across the entire world, the parents of all
children, all executives and workers associated with YouTube, and the
individuals that have been uploading these harmful videos. The stakeholders
that are most directly affected by this are all children. This is because they are
at such a young age that their brains are not fully developed, and what they
see could potentially directly influence them to act in an irrational manner.
This could include committing violent acts, harming themselves or others, and
even suicide. The parents of all children, not just children who have
personally seen these videos, are affected in this situation as well. Their
child could be watching the videos, their child may be manipulated by another
child who has viewed these videos, or their child could be put in harm’s way
due to another child acting irrationally. YouTube’s executives and workers are
affected by this because they are given a bad reputation for not being able to
remove these videos as quickly as many would like. Lastly, the individuals who
have uploaded these videos hold a large stake in this case because they are the
ones damaging the minds of the youth, possibly causing them to act in a
destructive manner.
Individualism
From the
perspective of an individualist the only goal of a business is to maximize
profit within the constructs of the law. Therefore, an individualist would feel
as though this situation was not taken care of in an ethical manner for a few
different reasons. The videos promote illegal acts, they
put YouTube’s reputation in a very bad position, and the manner in which the
videos were removed was performed inefficiently.
Although YouTube does not directly break the law
themselves through these videos, many of these videos advocate for illegal acts
to be committed by the youth. If YouTube is found to be linked to acts of
violence or suicide because of their content, they could end up in a very long
legal battle. YouTube’s reputation has been in jeopardy because they
have been the topic of much unfavorable media attention due to these videos,
which could result in their profits greatly decreasing. Milton Friedman’s original idea of “classic individualism” states, “Spending
money on resources, employees, and donations to causes is wrong because it is
essentially stealing from the owner or owners of the company” (Salazar 17-18).
YouTube directly neglected Friedman’s idea of not attempting to be “socially
responsible” when they decided to hire over 10,000 new employees to increase
the monitoring of their website content. Hiring 10,000 new employees is no small matter, and
the entire premise behind employing all of these workers was so that they could
eliminate their explicit content issue and regain their reputation. This plan failed.
Utilitarianism
A utilitarian
believes that the ultimate goal in any scenario is to obtain the maximum amount
of happiness possible by every stakeholder. That being the case, a utilitarian
would refute this situation as ethical from the perspective of every
stakeholder in this matter. Children may harm themselves or others,
parents are very upset with what their children are watching, and YouTube
receives a terrible reputation and damages the minds of adolescents.
Not only do none of the stakeholders achieve
maximum happiness, none of them really achieve any form of happiness in this
instance at all. Children are the stakeholders that are most greatly harmed by
this issue. They have been innocently trying to watch cartoons that would
normally cause them great joy, laughter, and even give them education. Instead,
they observe their favorite cartoons doing things such as drinking bleach,
fighting, and taking part in drugs; possibly leading them to believe these acts
are okay. Jeremy Bentham and John
Stewart Mill theorize, “utilitarians are concerned about the long-term costs
and benefits of actions” (Salazar 20). Seeing these videos could set off panic
in the minds of parents and cause them to totally alter how they would raise
their children and reshaping their
entire future. YouTube does not even benefit from this circumstance. Although
they may be getting views on these videos, the amount of bad publicity that
they are continually being mentioned in is very detrimental to the image that
they have built up since 2005. (YouTube Help)
Kantianism
A follower of
Kantianism believes that all individuals should act rationally in all of their
actions/decisions, help others to make rational decisions, respect people and
their autonomy, and always be motivated by goodwill. Furthermore, the formula
of humanity under Kantianism states, “Act in such a way that you treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the
same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant, MM 429). Because of
these aspects a Kantian would refute that this issue was handled ethically.
The
stakeholders in this case that are outright breaching the constructs of
Kantianism are YouTube and the individuals that chose to upload the videos to
YouTube. YouTube itself is not aiding the youth in making rational decisions
because they are allowing for these awful clips to stay on their site for an
extended period of time. This is considered to be a form of treating an
individual as a “means”; in other words, using a person, or in this case
millions of people, as an asset to achieve or attain something else (Salazar Kantian
Business Ethics, slide 9). By many people in the general public it has been
perceived that YouTube is leaving these videos up because they attract
attention to their site, basically using their viewers as a means to gain
popularity. The motivation
of self-interest states, “I will be honest with my customers in order to gain
their trust and get repeat-business” (Salazar Kantian Business Ethics, slide
12), which is being violated due to their dishonesty and unwillingness to
retain users. The uploaders of these videos are in total violation of
Kantianism as well just for different reasons. Uploading these fake cartoons
that contain abusive behavior to a children’s website for all children to see
is the furthest possible thing from acting rational. It actually leads children
to make irrational decisions. It does not show any sort of respect for people
and their autonomy. Lastly, there is not an ounce of goodwill instilled in
these actions.
Virtue Theory
A virtue theorist is an individual who truly thinks in
the moment and focuses on the means of a situation. What matters to them is how
a company or person carries their self on a regular basis. They believe that
how a person regularly acts depicts what kind of character they truly have. “Act
so as to embody a variety of virtuous or good character traits and so as to
avoid vicious or bad character traits,” (Salazar 17). The four main virtues
that a virtue theorist applies when analyzing a situation are courage, honesty,
temperance, and justice. In this instance one could argue that none of the four
of these virtues were followed in this case. Therefore, a virtue theorist would
feel this situation was handled unethically.
Courage is defined as “risk-taking
and willingness to take a stand for the right ideas and actions”. In this case
many individuals may feel as though both YouTube and the uploaders of these
videos were acting very cowardice. YouTube, because of their unwillingness to
be upfront about the dilemma. The uploaders, because
they made damaging videos to children behind a computer screen, not
even willing to show their faces. The second virtue of honesty speaks about
agreements between companies and their customers. YouTube chose to remain quiet
for the majority of the duration of this issue leaving the public to feel as
though they had been dishonest about their efforts to remove these videos.
Temperance in virtue theory is describe as “reasonable expectations and
desires”. This virtue is a little bit harder to relate to this topic, but a
virtue theorist may take issue with the fact that the users who uploaded these
videos did not have reasonable desires when posting them. The last virtue of
justice is entirely relatable to this topic. “Hard work, quality products, good
ideas, fair practi
ces”, this is how a virtue theorist idealizes justice.
Because of this they would most definitely find that YouTube’s “products” or
videos are not of great quality and that their “practices” of removing these
videos are not fair to children who may become mentally scarred after
witnessing these clips. (Salazar Business Ethics and Virtue, slide 6)Justified Ethics Explanation
In my
personal opinion YouTube’s actions in some instances have been unprofessional
and quite unethical, however they have also showed that they are trying to fix
the issue at hand. Yes, they have made considerable efforts to remove these
videos and to me it is very important to realize how massive YouTube is.
However, I feel as though YouTube must be much more open and transparent with
the public when it comes to this matter because it makes it seem as though they
are trying to hide something. When researching the topic you will stumble upon
many articles that say something along the lines of “we asked YouTube for a
statement on this topic and they chose to decline”. I think that is an entirely
awful look for them and it allows people to assume whatever they would like to
believe about this situation. If YouTube was to come out to the public stating
exactly how the process of video removal works, how they are trying to improve
it, and how the public can help them improve it would greatly help their cause.
When Dr. Free Hess posted her blog online speaking about one of the videos in
particular and facts about suicide in children, it gained attention from so
many, and then YouTube took down the video. This made YouTube look very selfish, only removing the videos to better themselves.
Action Plan
YouTube clearly has their
work cut out for them in resolving this issue, however there are a few different
steps they can take in order to successfully put this issue to rest. They may
hire more employees so they can be more precise in monitoring their content,
they must drastically improve their technology to ensure these videos do not
even make it on to their site, and they should implement strict background
checks on people that intend to upload media to their channels.
The first step YouTube must take in order to eliminate
this problem, although they already hired 10,000 new employees, they should
definitely consider adding on even more. YouTube’s population is absolutely
massive with over 30 million users a day, and over 5 billion videos uploaded to
date (YouTube Help). It is simply impossible to expect just 10,000 people (keep
in mind they are not all working at the same time) to sift through every single
video. That is why in the next step YouTube must put the bulk of their emphasis on greatly improving their technology. The algorithms must be more accurate and effective.
The final step YouTube must complete to make their site a
safer and more inviting environment for children is to implement background
checks on users. YouTube is very relaxed on who they allow to display content
on their website. Anyone who has access to a computer is able to create an account
and very easily upload videos of their choice. Yes, as it was mentioned before
YouTube does have the three strike system. The third strike does result in the
removal of the user’s account, but who’s to say that user will not very easily
create another account? Who’s to say that user will not upload those same type
of videos on their new account?
Works Cited
“Community
Guidelines Strike Basics - YouTube Help.” YouTube Help, Google, support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802032?hl=en-GB.
“Death among
Children and Adolescents: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia.”MedlinePlus,U.S.National
Library of Medicine, 2019, medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001915.htm.
Iyengar,
Rishi, and Making Greater Use Of Smart Technology. “Google Is Hiring 10,000
People to Clean up YouTube.” CNNMoney,
Cable News Network, money.cnn.com/2017/12/05/technology/google-youtube-hiring-reviewers-offensive- videos/index.html.
Lewis,
Sophie. “Horrified Mom Discovers Suicide Instructions in Video on YouTube and YouTube
Kids.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 23 Feb. 2019, www.cbsnews.com/news/youtube-kids-inappropriate-horrified-mom-discovers- suicide-instructions-in-video-on-youtube-and-youtube-kids/
Maheshwari,
Sapna. “On YouTube Kids, Startling Videos Slip Past Filters.” The New York Times, The
New York Times, 4 Nov. 2017 www.nytimes.com/2017/11/04/business/media/youtube-kids-paw-patrol.html.
O'Brien, Sara
Ashley. “Google Cracks down on Disturbing Cartoons on YouTube Kids.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network,
money.cnn.com/2017/11/10/technology/youtube- age-restriction/?iid=EL.
Salazar,
Heather. Kantian Business Ethics. n.d.
Salazar,
Heather. Business Ethics and Virtue. n.d.
Salazar,
Heather. The Business Ethics Case Manual.
n.d.
Subedar &
Yates.“The Disturbing YouTube Videos That Are Tricking Children.” BBC News,
BBC, 27 Mar. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39381889.
Weston,
Phoebe. “YouTube Kids App Is STILL Showing Disturbing Videos.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 6 Feb.
2018, www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article- 5358365/YouTube-Kids-app-showing-disturbing-videos.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment