Abstract
YouTube is a form
of social media that consists of video sharing and production. Users can post
videos as well as interact with items already on the site. YouTube, along with
other popular social media sites faced pressure to censor the content being
posted by their users. The controversy surrounding the presidential election
traveled quickly nationwide through sites like YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and
Instagram. These companies were forced to make quick decisions to protect their
users as well as the name of their brands. To determine if the decisions
YouTube made in this situation were ethical, we will compare the four main
ethical theories. Individualism, Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and the Virtue
Theory are packed with standards that YouTube needed to meet in order to be
considered ethical in the choices they made regarding their censoring of
information.
Ethics
Case Controversy
The 2020 United States Presidential election was consumed with controversy and accusations. Using social media sites, misinformation about the election and election results spread across the country. Sites like YouTube, Google, and Facebook were the largest platforms that were being used to spread false information. The Presidential election was a serious matter in the United States and many social media platforms released statements on how they planned to limit and control information on their pages. YouTube did not make an official statement until the “safe harbor” deadline after the election. The “safe harbor” deadline is the last day that Congress has the legal ability to intervene in the election. All states will have their final and official vote counts by this day and Congress does not have any authority for change once the deadline is reached. In YouTube’s statement, they addressed that they will not tolerate any content that speaks on misleading information. Referring to the safe harbor deadline, YouTube says, “Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or any time after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections” (YouTube). The company stated that any content referring to the election being ruined by counting errors or software glitches will be immediately removed.
 |
| An example of some of the misinformation posted on numerous social media pages |
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is a law that was created
in 1996, with the intent of regulating online pornography. This law protects
media sites like YouTube by stating that if their users are to post illegal
things, they are not considered liable (CBS News). Those opposed to this claim
that companies are using it to hide and not address their issues upfront. This
also allows for defamation lawsuits for organizations who are displeased with
their reviews on certain sites. There is controversy from both sides of the
political atmosphere. Joe Biden and other democrats feel that this law allows for
companies to take a backseat and not take the action they should be to censor
their websites. Donald Trump and other republicans feel that their opinions are
being censored and this law allows for a “shield” to protect them (CFR). The
basis of this misinformation scandal with YouTube is based on the election
between Donald Trump and Joe Biden in 2020. Donald Trump and his supporters
claimed that the election was stolen, and that Joe Biden won based on
miscalculation as well as voter fraud. Videos of these claims were plastered
all over YouTube, forcing the company to release the censorship statements that
they did.
YouTube’s current
statement on their website states that they do not allow any content that could
be misleading or incorrect. YouTube states on their site, “With billions of people visiting us every day -
whether they’re looking to be informed, to catch up on the latest news, or to
learn more about the topics they care about, we have a responsibility to
connect people to high-quality content. So, the most important thing we can do
is increase the good and decrease the bad. That’s why we address misinformation
on our platform based on our ‘4 Rs’ principles: we remove content that violates
our policies, reduce recommendations of borderline content, raise up
authoritative sources for news and information, and reward trusted creators.”
 |
| Examples of some election content that YouTube allowed to be posted |
On January 6, 2021, YouTube content creators livestreamed the attack on
the Capitol. Two specific creators, Ford Fischer and news outlet Status Coup
had their videos removed by YouTube. YouTube released a statement to both
channels saying, ‘” Content that advances false claims that widespread fraud,
errors, or glitches changed the outcome of the U.S. 2020 presidential election
is not allowed on YouTube.”’ (Forbes). These creators argued that YouTube was
interfering with the posting of raw footage that was historically significant.
Forbes also highlights that YouTube had not removed footage from news outlets
like NBC News and the Telegraph, both of which posted speeches from the riot.
YouTube was yet again late to the party as they took nearly a week to place a
suspension on Donald Trump. Twitter and Facebook banned him indefinitely right
after the event.
Stakeholders
 |
| CEO of YouTube Susan Wojcicki |
Individualism
Individualism in business ethics is making a decision based on personal benefit.
Milton Friedman’s individualism theory states that the only goal of a business
is to profit. Business individuals only need to focus on maximizing their
profit for business owners or stockholders (Salazar). Tibor Machan believes
that individualism also believes that the direct goal is to maximize profits, but
only by first completing indirect goals that are not related to profits
(Salazar). This theory suggests that if everyone makes decisions that are the
best for themselves, it will benefit the group. Those following an individualistic
model feel that personal benefit is the most important factor when making a
decision. This theory is arguable incredibly selfish and harmful in a group
atmosphere. In the instance of YouTube, they originally chose to not release a
statement addressing the misinformation across the platform. Perhaps they were
looking to protect their brand, or they did not want to anger their users. I do
not think YouTube was concerned about their profits but more about their image
to the public. Removing and censoring videos ultimately hurt the company as
they lost customers. YouTube was looking to defend their organization because
of the pressure they were experiencing. An individualist would agree with
YouTube’s decision to remove these videos. It seems that YouTube was looking to
benefit their company in the only way they could in this situation.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism
is a theory that focuses on actions that promote happiness and oppose actions
that may not encourage happiness or cause harm. Utilitarianism seeks to please
and satisfy every individual involved. The goal of Utilitarianism is to
maximize happiness and pleasure in yourself and others. Within this theory
there is the belief that if something is promoting positive behavior but is misleading
information, then it is acceptable. However, if the information is incorrect
and is misleading, it is not acceptable. A utilitarian would view YouTube’s approach
to this situation as the most ethical decision. They were making attempts to
limit harmful information from being presented to their viewers. As stated
earlier, utilitarianism demotes actions that may cause harm or not encourage
happiness. YouTube has an obligation to protect their users from harmful
content which is what prompted them to create new guidelines. There were no
true consequences or harmful results that came from the decisions that YouTube
made. Utilitarians, “avoid short-sighted thinking that often boost profits
momentarily but leads to a quick demise” (Salazar). This applies to YouTube because
it did not boost their profits or lead to a demise. At first there was backlash
from the public, but it quickly blew over. Now, there is only a small group
that still holds a grudge against YouTube for this issue. YouTube was not looking
to profit over these decisions, they were only looking to protect their page as
well as their other users from viewing misinformation.
Kantianism
Kantianism is
believing that people should act rationally and do the right thing, because it
is the right thing to do. It is the belief that people should act rationally as
well as help others make rational decisions. Immanuel Kant proposed this system
and felt that people’s wills should be based on moral rules. Referring to
Kantianism, “It claims that we all have duties toward one another that depend
on our relationships with one another, the most basic and all-pervasive
relationship between persons being that of a fellow member of humanity”
(Salazar). We must all act in a way that benefits ourselves while following
similar values. Kantian examines the
morals of the people behind the action, in contrast to Utilitarianism which focuses
on consequences. Immanuel Kant said, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether
in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means
only.” This statement by Kant is referred to as the formula of humanity and
motivation and is the basis of Kantianism. YouTube felt that they had the
obligation to create some regulations on their site. Prior to implanting these
regulations, YouTube had trust in their users to post content with correct
information and not mislead viewers. They did not treat anyone in a way that a
Kantian would consider unethical. YouTube released their guidelines and acted
as they promised if they were violated.
Virtue
Theory
Virtues are the characteristics that allow things to function properly
are called ‘good-making features’ or “virtues’ (Salazar). The virtue theory focuses
on the idea that we should not necessarily follow rules but follow what we feel
will better an organization. This means focusing on how we want to represent
our company through the employees we hire and what kind of behaviors we expect.
The Virtue Theory focuses on four characteristics. These characteristics are
courage, honesty, temperance, and justice. YouTube initially lacked in the
courage category when they refused to step up and make a statement regarding
the misinformation. Based on the Virtue Theory, the characteristic of courage
requires one to stand up for what is right and be confident enough to take a
stand. YouTube did not present this characteristic immediately. As far as the
honesty characteristic, YouTube aligned with this. The honesty characteristic
is about being truthful and transparent when completing business related tasks.
The company was upfront with the public about what their action plan was as
soon as they had announced it. The temperance virtue is all about setting
reasonable expectations for an organization. YouTube had the responsibility to do
what was best for their company, as well as their customers. They had
expectations of locating every video containing misinformation when that is
impossible to achieve. The final virtue is justice which deals with fair
practicing within an organization. YouTube had the responsibility to remove
videos in a fair and reasonable way. They did not go about this situation in a
fair way as it is evident that they typically removed videos coming from right-sided
users. There is also evidence of YouTube removing some videos they did not want
up but leaving some of similar nature. YouTube should have removed and
restricted all videos to remain fair and ethical. By leaving some up and not
full restricting some accounts, there is a level of bias involved which
discredits YouTube’s authority in this situation. Based on the examination of
ethics through the Virtue Theory, YouTube was ethical in their decision. They
did not follow every virtue; however, they nailed two out of four.
Justified
Ethics Theory Evaluation
In my opinion, YouTube’s
actions were ethical. The decision they made aligns with the four ethical
theories mentioned above. There are however parts of this controversy that are not
ethical. YouTube at one point seemed to be picking and choosing which videos
they wanted to remove. YouTube should have treated all accounts and users the
same way but that was not the case. There were many similar videos that were
left on the site and not censored. Specifically, republicans felt that they
were being targeted in the removal of videos. There is not outstanding evidence
that would indicate this is true. They also argued that this is a violation of
their First Amendment Rights. YouTube was successful in following honesty and temperance.
The company was honest about their feelings towards the situation and about
what would trigger them to remove a video. YouTube was also temperament as they
were doing wheat was best for the organization. They set clear expectations and
made those visible to the public. YouTube released proper statements and information
regarding what their expectations were. They warned their users about what would
prompt their videos to be removed. I feel that this justifies YouTube’s decisions
and proves them to be ethical. Their decisions were not flawless; however, they
were doing what they felt was the best for everyone involved.
Conclusion
Many
social media platforms are facing similar issues regarding what they can and
cannot control as far as content. Users want the ability to post and view
whatever they want. Platforms want to be able to control and monitor what is
posted on their sites. Either way, one group does not get what they want. I
feel that YouTube has the ultimate power in this situation as it is their decision
on how they regulate posts. This opened the eyes of many users who were furious
about the idea of being restricted. This is not the last time that YouTube will
face this challenge. The hope is that they have learned how the handle this
situation better and the regulations they have already, will help prevent any
major damage down the line.
References
Grant, N. (2022) YouTube
may have misinformation blind spots, researchers say, The New York Times.
The New York Times. Available at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/05/technology/youtube-misinformation.html
Hugh
Langley, R. P. (n.d.). YouTube org chart: We identified the 49 most powerful
people helping CEO Susan Wojcicki steer the $1 Trillion video goliath.
Business Insider. Retrieved December 2, 2022, from
https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-org-chart-top-executives-2021-10
Patterson,
D. (2020) What is "Section 230," and why do many lawmakers want to
repeal it?, CBS News. CBS Interactive. Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-section-230-and-why-do-so-many-lawmakers-want-to-repeal-it/
(Accessed: December 2, 2022).
Team,
T.Y.T. (2020) Supporting the 2020 U.S. election, blog.youtube.
YouTube Official Blog. Available at:
https://blog.youtube/news-and-events/supporting-the-2020-us-election/
Trump
and Section 230: What to know (no date) Council on Foreign Relations.
Council on Foreign Relations. Available at:
https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/trump-and-section-230-what-know
Salazar, Heather. The
Business Ethics Case Manual. n.d.
Sandler,
R. (2021) YouTube is taking down raw footage from the Capitol Riot as it
tries to crack down on misinformation, Forbes. Forbes Magazine.
Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2021/02/04/youtube-is-taking-down-raw-footage-from-the-capitol-riot-as-it-tries-to-crack-down-on-misinformation/?sh=b4f9c434c102
YouTube's censorship of
the 2020 election criticism is an argument for abolishing Section 230
(no date) RT International. Available at:
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/509237-youtube-censorship-2020-election/
YouTube
statistics 2022: How many users does YouTube have? (2022) IncrediTools.
Available at: https://increditools.com/youtube-statistics/ (Accessed: December
2, 2022).
No comments:
Post a Comment