Showing posts with label Conspiracy Theories. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conspiracy Theories. Show all posts

Saturday, December 11, 2021

Theranos: A Company Made to Deceive (2015-2021)

 Theranos: A Company Made to Deceive (2015-2021)


Case Controversy:

In 2003, Elizabeth Holmes, a 19-year-old Stanford student dropped out of college and launched Theranos inc. Theranos was a blood testing company whose business model revolved around the idea that they could run blood tests using proprietary technology that required only a finger prick and a small amount of blood. These tests were allegedly supposed to be able to detect medical conditions like cancer and high cholesterol using small, automated devices (Hartmans Leskin Jackson 8). Between the years of 2004 and 2007 Theranos attracted investors and raised millions of dollars. Theranos’ valuation went from about $30 million in 20014 to $197 million in 2007.

In 2009 Ramesh Balwani, who was romantically involved with Holmes’ at the time, joined the company. Balwani would serve as president and CEO of Theranos. Balwani and Holmes would continue to grow the company and in 2013 Theranos’ blood tests were available to the public through a partnership with Walgreens. Theranos’ value would skyrocket as it reached $9 billion. Holmes’ net worth was now $4.5 billion, and she was considered the youngest self-made billionaire on planet Earth (Tun 3). 

On October 15, 2015, an article published by the Wall Street Journal exposed the shortcomings of Theranos. The article claimed that the blood tests were not being run on proprietary technology but instead on commercial blood analyzers. The effectiveness and accuracy of Holmes’ breakthrough blood testing machine “Edison'' was also brought into question in the article as it was reported the device could only perform 15 tests which is not what Theranos’ website claims. The article stated, “But Theranos’s outside lawyer, David Boies, acknowledges that the company isn’t yet using the device for all the tests Theranos offers. The transition to doing every test with the device is “a journey,” he says. Asked about the claim on the company’s website, Mr. Boies replied that using the device for the “full range” of blood tests is a goal Theranos will eventually achieve.” (Carreyrou 9). In the midst of the Wall Street Journal’s reporting Theranos deleted claims on their website that their test only required a few drops of blood among other things. They would come out publicly and say that the website alterations were done for marketing accuracy. 

Holmes continued to back her company and claimed that they were in a pause period while waiting for federal approval of their proprietary technology. However, in January of 2016 during an inspection by the Medicare and Medicaid services it was discovered that Theranos’ California lab which housed its proprietary technology had deficiencies that posed immediate health and safety risks to patients. The four-page letter from the Medicaid and Medicare services included major infractions in five different categories including Hematology tests. Hematology tests are extremely important for patients with diabetes and with blood coagulation issues. The tests determine whether patients should be put on anticoagulation medication whose side effects are life threatening (Carreyrou 12). Shortly after the inspection Balwani would leave Theranos for good in May 2016

In October 2016, about a year after the Wall Street Journal's initial reporting Theranos made the decision to close its medical lab operations. About 6 months later the Arizona attorney general announced that all Arizonians could get a full refund if they purchased a Theranos product as part of a $4.65 million settlement with the company. In 2018 after another $100 million settlement with an investment firm Theranos collapsed. In March of 2018 the Securities and Exchange commission charged Theranos, Holmes, and Balwani with civil securities fraud. Theranos and Holmes reached settlements without admitting or denying liability. On June 18, 2015, federal prosecutors brought criminal fraud charges to Holmes and Balwani. The initial indictment detailed two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and nine counts of wire fraud. “According to the indictment, the charges stem from allegations that Holmes and Balwani engaged in a multi-million-dollar scheme to defraud investors, and a separate scheme to defraud doctors and patients.  Both schemes involved efforts to promote Theranos, a company founded by Holmes and based in Palo Alto, California.” (United States Department of Justice 1). The indictment further explained how Holmes and Balwani knew Theranos’ tests were not able to produce accurate and reliable tests and that Theranos’ technology was likely to produce inaccurate and unreliable results. It is stated that Holmes was aware that Theranos claimed to use their own proprietary technology for blood tests but instead was using third party, commercial blood analyzers. (United States Department of Justice 2). The indictment continues to allege that, “defendants used a combination of direct communications, marketing materials, statements to the media, financial statements, models, and other information to defraud potential investors.  Specifically, the defendants claimed that Theranos developed a revolutionary and proprietary analyzer that the defendants referred to by various names, including as the TSPU, Edison, or minilab.” (United States Department of justice 5).

Holmes’s lawyer has repeatedly stated that “Failure is not a crime” to counter assistant US attorney general Robert Leach who, “painted Ms. Holmes as an executive who took shortcuts to try to keep her company solvent and lied to keep investor money flowing” (Randazzo 2). During the opening statements of Holmes' trial on September 8th. While the trial is yet to conclude Holmes is facing up to 20 years in prison. This is an unusually long sentence for a Silicon Valley startup failure. Reasoning for this is, “The reason Holmes is facing up to 20 years in prison, rather than a slap on the wrist, has to do with the brazenness, magnitude and longevity of her alleged deceits, which included secretly sending blood samples for outside lab tests rather than using the company’s own technology.” (Oremus 7)









Stakeholders: 

 

         The stakeholders in this specific case are the company, Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, investors, the patients and doctors that used Theranos’s technology, and the stores that sold Theranos’ products. Theranos is an obvious stakeholder in this case. As a company, before the allegations of inaccurate test results and findings, Theranos was worth billions of dollars. After the allegations and charges, the company was forced to collapse and is now no longer a thing. Elizabeth Holmes as her reputation as an entrepreneur, valuation, and future are all affected by this case. Holmes' reputation as an entrepreneur is at stake as it now appears she is willing to deceive and mislead investors in order to get their money. Before the case Holmes was valued at $4.5 billion and was named the youngest self-made billionaire of all time. After the case her net worth is now estimated to be zero due to her entire net worth being her 50% stake in Theranos. Now that Theranos has collapsed that value is gone (Herper 2). Her future is at stake as she is currently at trial for her role in the Theranos scandal and is facing up to 20 years in federal prison. The many people that invested mass amounts of money into Theranos were greatly affected as they lost all of their money due to the collapse of the company. The doctors who implemented and used Theranos supposedly proprietary technology are affected as they could have possibly run false and misleading tests on their patients. This could lead to serious life-threatening repercussions for patients and could ruin a doctor’s reputation and credibility. Patients who were given blood tests administered by Theranos’ technology are also affected by this. Due to many tests, being inaccurate and unreliable, patients ' health and safety is severely at risk. The companies and stores that distributed Thernaos’ product such as Walgreens and Safeway, are also affected. These companies are obviously forced to no longer sell these tests and will have to revert to the old products they used to distribute


Utilitarianism: 

Under utilitarianism, businesses should ​​ aim to maximize happiness for all parties that are involved in the business action. This happiness should be maximized not only in the short term but also in the long term. Utilitarians must compare the business actions with other possible actions to find out which possible actions would benefit happiness in the long term (Salazar 17). A utilitarian would view Elizabeth Holmes, and her company Theranos as very unethical as they didn't maximize the short term or long-term happiness of all the stakeholders involved in their business actions. For Elizabeth Holmes, her happiness was maximized in the short term, with the wealth she acquired, but was not maximized in the long term as she would end up losing all her money, and potentially facing jail time for her role in the Theranos scandal. The investors that pumped money into Theranos At the start of the fraudulent product also did not have their happiness maximized. Like Holmes, the investors would end up being happy in the short term as the company's value steadily grew, but in the long term they would suffer as the company was found out to be fraudulent and collapsed. The doctors that were involved in this case due to using Theranos’ “new technology'' did not benefit from this case at all. By using the technology, doctors were making false and unreliable blood test readings for their patients. This puts patients at short- and long-term health risks. Patient’s happiness in this case was not maximized in the short or long term. Theranos’ inability to produce effective blood testing kits put the patients in a situation where they had to make important health decisions based on false readings. Patients that received these false readings most likely had to return to their respective doctor and get new readings done with the proper testing kits. They were also forced to most likely change medications based on new results. There were also many instances where the original medication a patient was put on due to the false readings had side effects that were life threatening and could have ended up being deadly if used incorrectly. Theranos’ partners, Walgreens, Safeway, and Capital BlueCross are also unhappy. Due to them distributing Theranos’ blood testing kits it makes them have to revert back to their previous contract with another company that had reliable blood testing kits. This costs money and time in the long term. Overall, none of the Stakeholders involved in this case benefited from the actions of Theranos. A company that would be considered ethical under a utilitarian viewpoint would maximize their stakeholder’s happiness. Unfortunately, Theranos almost maximized unhappiness for its stakeholders in both the short term and the long term. Theranos deceived not only the investors that trusted them with their money, but the everyday person that trusted them with their health and safety.

Individualism:

Under individualism, businesses should act in order to maximize their profits while remaining with the constraints of the law. Milton Friedman developed the doctrine as a theory of business ethics that states that “an entity’s greatest responsibility lies in the satisfaction of the shareholders.”  He also said Friedman “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud” (DesJardins 2014).

Those quotes and this theory go alongside how Holmes and Sunny had strategic advertising and marketing plans and were able to gather over $700 million from investors. Holmes and Sunny promised this revolutionary type of testing that brought so much hope to not only consumers but also investors making them so willing to contribute and invest in the company. These two were trying to maximize their company’s profits and make the most money however they failed to follow the single most important part of individualism, which is remaining within the constraints of the law. The defendants Holmes and Sunny knew Theranos was not capable of consistently producing accurate and reliable results for certain blood tests even though they allegedly knew they were likely to contain inaccurate and unreliable results yet continued the company while scamming their investors. Not only were the two wrong for scamming their investors but they also “misled doctors and patients about the reliability of medical tests that endangered health and lives," said John F Bennett of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Since they failed to produce devices that were FDA approved as well as mislead patients to believing these tests were reliable, Theranos failed to maximize profits for the owners, and failed to stay within the constraints of the  law, therefore rendering their practices unethical and destroying the company that was once worth 9 billion dollars. 

Kantianism:

A Kantian would view Theranos’ way of handling the situation as incredibly unethical and impermissible. Kantianism’s basis for deciding whether or not an action is ethical or permissible uses consistency within a person’s judgement and their actions performed. In order for a person and their action to be considered permissible and ethical, they would have to not treat anybody as a mere means in order to achieve a result and act as though everyone is a person who should be respected. This would be the basis for the Formula for Humanity. That person would also have to act rationally and not out of bad intentions or motivations. Deceit and lying would be a form of bad intention because you are not complying with Categorical Imperatives which include the opposite of irrational actions. In our case, Elizabeth Holmes is caught lying and spreading false information to everybody including the stakeholders. This would be an immediate form of deceit which would then deem this case as unethical. 

Virtue Theory:

Virtue theory is best described as that something is inherently good if it serves its function well. There are five main virtues in virtue theory, and these main virtues help us get along with the rest of society. These five virtues are courage, honesty, temperance/self-control, justice, and fairness. When looking at the case of Elizabeth Holmes and her company, these virtues are well represented in both positive and negative ways. Someone who displayed multiple virtues was John Carreyrou, the writer for Wall Street Journal. He went into the company and observed their environment. This led to him finding issues within the company and calling them out on it. He received backlash from the company, and the company even threatened to sue him for becoming a perceived enemy to the company. Also, there were reports of company employees starting a chant saying, “F*** you Carreyrou”. Despite all this backlash, he still displayed courage and was able to fight for what is right. He promoted honesty by not trying to hide what was going on with the company. The reason he was honest was because he wanted to promote justice and fairness in order to make things right and not allow this company to take advantage of anymore people.  Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh Balwani were two people who displayed almost the opposite of all these virtues. These two individuals were the masterminds behind all of the company’s success. When looking at the five main virtues, it is safe to say that they lacked all five of these virtues. They did not have courage because they were hiding and operating in secret for an entire decade before they were eventually forced to go public. They lacked any sort of honesty as they lied and manipulated many different investors into investing millions of dollars into the company. They also had no self-control because of how quickly they gave in to their desires. They saw a market to manipulate people and make money in the blood testing business and went straight for it, without even considering the negative aspects of it. They did not promote justice in any way because they were sneaking around and doing illegal things. They had no interest in doing what was right, and they only cared about doing what would make them the most money. Lastly, they did not have any fairness either. There were reports of them running tests while using other companies' technology. They did not play by the rules or play fair and would use whatever cheap tricks they could to gain an advantage over the competition.

​​Overall, none of the Stakeholders involved in this case benefited from the actions of Theranos. Not only were the two wrong for scamming their investors but they also “misled doctors and patients about the reliability of medical tests that endangered health and lives," said John F Bennett of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unfortunately, Theranos almost maximized unhappiness for its stakeholders in both the short term and the long term, broke the law while trying to maximize their profit, had poor judgement deeming their actions impermissible, and broke the virtues of honesty, justice and fairness . Theranos deceived not only the investors that trusted them with their money, but the everyday person that trusted them with their health and safety.

Action Plan:

Theranos’ main problem revolved around the company's dishonesty about what their technology and products were capable of doing. The CEO of Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, and the COO, Ramesh Balwani were consistently dishonest about their capabilities of their new blood testing technology, in order to deceive investors into dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the company. This all came crashing down when it was discovered that Theranos’ technology was ineffective and nothing like it was marketed to be. Theranos as a company collapsed after Balwani and Holmes were charged with fraud. 

If Theranos as a company stayed afloat it would need to seriously change their values and mission. Theranos mission moving forward should have been to produce innovative, effective blood testing devices that are smaller and cheaper than anything made prior. As a company, Theranos values convenient, simple, and cheap medical care, but most importantly the health and well being of all their customers 

As a company Theranos needs to establish new core values. Before the scandal it seemed as if Theranos valued things such as making money, dishonesty, and deception. Holmes and Balwani were not in the industry to improve other people's lives but they were solely trying to improve their own lives. A new look Theranos would have core values that prioritize patient safety, convenience, innovation, and honesty. These values would guide the company to doing what they initially intended to do, make innovative and effective medical equipment. By committing to patient safety, Theranos will make it their main goal to put patients first, they will be sure to research and test new testing devices effectively before putting them to market and will never prioritize profit over safety which they had previously done. Convenience and innovation are important values for the company as they are looking to release the smallest and cheapest blood testing devices on the market. By doing this they will be like no other medical technology/equipment company in the world. Honesty is obviously something Theranos needs to value. There was no honesty in the company run by Holmes and Balwani, and transparency will be of the utmost importance in order to gain back patients and doctors' trust.

To ensure ethical business procedures are being abided by, Theranos will obviously need to hire a new CEO and COO. Theranos should target leaders who value the same things that they as a company value. Theranos also needs to make sure that the engineers, doctors, and lab workers they employ in order to produce and analyze the tests are competent and qualified enough for their job. By doing these things, Theranos will be able to actually produce what they initially set out to produce. This will guarantee profit as it is already proven that the proposed technology will attract investors and distributors. This time around, Theranos just has to execute what they say they are trying to. 

Brian Geitner, Anthony Kelliher, Destiny Swierkosz, Ryan McCann



References: 

Avery Hartmans, Paige Leskin. “The Rise and Fall of Elizabeth Holmes, the Theranos Founder Who Is Now on Trial for Fraud.” Business Insider. Business Insider, August 31, 2021. https://www.businessinsider.com/theranos-founder-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-life-story-bio-2018-4.

Bloomberg. “Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Charged with Wire Fraud.” Time, Time, 15 June 2018, https://time.com/5313978/elizabeth-holmes-indicted-wire-fraud/.

Carreyrou, John. “Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled with Its Blood-Test Technology.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, October 16, 2015. https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901.

DesJardins, Joseph R. An Introduction to Business Ethics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2020.

Elizabeth Holmes Trial: Key Takeaways from Week 8 - the ... www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/technology/elizabeth-holmes-trial-takeaways.html

“Elizabeth Holmes Trial: Live Updates.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/elizabeth-holmes-trial-theranos.

Herper, Matthew. “From $4.5 Billion to Nothing: Forbes Revises Estimated Net Worth of Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, March 22, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion-to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/?sh=74ad60a13633.

Khorram, Yasmin. “Elizabeth Holmes Said She Was the 'Ultimate Decision Maker' at Theranos in 2017 Deposition as Her Defense Team Argues the Opposite in Criminal Trial.” CNBC, CNBC, 4 Nov. 2021, www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/elizabeth-holmes-said-she-was-decision-maker-at-theranos-in-2017-deposition.html.

Oremus, Will. “Analysis | Elizabeth Holmes's Trial Spotlights Silicon Valley's Thin Line between Hype and Deceit.” The Washington Post. WP Company, September 1, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-analysis-silicon-valley/.

Randazzo, Sara. “The Theranos Trial: Elizabeth Holmes, the Charges and What Else to Know.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, September 23, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-theranos-trial-elizabeth-holmes-the-charges-and-what-else-to-know-11625865236.

Salazar, H. The Business Ethics Case Manual. N.d.

“Theranos Founder Hit with Criminal Charges.” BBC News, BBC, 15 June 2018, www.bbc.com/news/business-44501631

Thomas, Daniel. “Theranos Scandal: Who Is Elizabeth Holmes and Why Is She on Trial?” BBC News, BBC, 30 Aug. 2021, www.bbc.com/news/business-58336998

Tun, Zaw Thiha. “A Timeline of Theranos's Troubles.” Investopedia. Investopedia, August 3, 2021. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020116/theranos-fallen-unicorn.asp.

“U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, Et Al..” The United States Department of Justice, October 12, 2021. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v-elizabeth-holmes-et-al.


Barbaro, Michael, Michael Simon Johnson, Clare Toeniskoetter, Neena Pathak, Diana Nguyen, Paige Cowett, Marion Lozano, and Chris Wood. “The United States v. Elizabeth Holmes.” The New York Times. The New York Times, September 16, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/podcasts/the-daily/elizabeth-holmes-trial-theranos-silicon-valley.html.

Carreyrou, John. “Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled with Its Blood-Test Technology.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, October 16, 2015. https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901.

“Elizabeth Holmes Trial Week 10 Recap: 'Hostile' Behavior from Theranos' Former COO, and 60,000 Voided Tests.” Yahoo! News. Yahoo! Accessed November 15, 2021. https://news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-holmes-trial-week-10-173918502.html.

Herper, Matthew. “From $4.5 Billion to Nothing: Forbes Revises Estimated Net Worth of Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, March 22, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion-to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/?sh=2ab06c0c3633.

Jackson, Sarah. “Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes' Fraud Trial Is Now Underway. Here Are Some of the Big Players Listed as Potential Witnesses in the Case.” Business Insider. Business Insider, September 8, 2021. https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-fraud-trial-witness-list-2021-9?utm_source=yahoo.com&utm_medium=referral.

Lagasse, Jeff. “CMS Letter to Theranos Claims Test Failed to Spot Prostate Cancer.” Healthcare Finance News. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/cms-letter-theranos-claims-test-failed-spot-prostate-cancer.

“Press Release.” SEC Emblem, March 14, 2018. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-41.

Roper, Caitlin. “This Woman Invented a Way to Run 30 Lab Tests on Only One Drop of Blood.” Wired. Conde Nast, February 18, 2014. https://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/.

Sanborn, Beth Jones. “Theranos Appeals Sanctions Imposed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.” Healthcare Finance News. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/theranos-appeals-sanctions-imposed-centers-medicare-and-medicaid-services.

Tun, Zaw Thiha. “A Timeline of Theranos's Troubles.” Investopedia. Investopedia, August 3, 2021. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020116/theranos-fallen-unicorn.asp.

“U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, Et Al..” The United States Department of Justice, October 12, 2021. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v-elizabeth-holmes-et-al.

“US v Holmes Trial Notes.” /files/18-CR-258 USA v. Holmes/. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://files.cand.uscourts.gov/files/18-CR-258%20USA%20v.%20Holmes/.

Salazar, H. The Business Ethics Case Manual. n. d.


Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Youtube: Covid Conspiracy Theories

 The Case:

YouTube since its creation in 2005 has been rising in popularity not just in the U.S. but on an international level as well. With the general use of social media also on a steep increase since the early 2000’s they have become a host for a wide range of ethical debates surrounding topics such as privacy, ownership, usage, governmental control and many others. This case focuses specifically on the ethicality of conspiracy theorists using the massive platform during the global pandemic to promote radical misinformation surrounding Coronavirus.  Censorship and the First Amendment are terms often used together during debates such as this. The topic of what is and what is not covered by free speech in the United States has been part of heated debates and has been seen in various court cases. YouTube, a privately owned company, was deemed “not a public forum with guaranteed free speech” as of February of this year in a case ruled by San Francisco's Ninth Circuit appeals court (BBC). The court case was initiated by PragerU, a right-winged YouTube channel after YouTube censored its content. This leads into the concerning issue of the rapid widespread misinformation surrounding the coronavirus perpetuated by conspiracy theorists such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a notorious proponent of the anti-vaccination movement. 

After an interview between Patrick Bet-David, a popular financial YouTuber and Robert F. Kenedy, went viral on YouTube and in only two days gained over half a million views. Not only was the video monetized (limited ads) it also featured a catchy title promoting the “exclusive” interview and a link to his merchandise easily accessible in the description. The interview consisted of three separate videos, one of which was later removed by YouTube for violating its medical misinformation policies but not before over a million people had viewed it. Despite attempts from YouTube to censor and prevent the spread of misinformation, many health experts are concerned that this type of misinformation could still yield intensly dangerous outcomes even if content has been removed.

The Coronavirus outbreak was first declared a national emergency by President Trump March 13, 2020 and almost immediately conspiracy theories began to flood the internet and spread across social media platforms. Thus, as  2020 began so did the birth of coronavirus conspiracy theories. These original conspiracies claimed that billionaire Bill Gates created the virus, patented it, and would use vaccines to control people. These began floating around the internet when one went viral as soon as March 19, 2020 when a website called Biohackinfo.com falsely stated that Gates was intending to use a vaccine as a way to monitor people via microchip (Nature). Two days after a YouTube video surrounding this gained nearly two million views before being removed. This was the first warning sign that in addition to worrying about the Coronavirus itself, we may also have to fear the dangerous nature of this information. The reason it is such a concern not only for the platforms like YouTube but for researchers and health experts as well is because of the influence this medical misinformation has on people's actions and beliefs combined with the fact controlling and preventing the spread of misinformation is increasingly difficult. Within minutes a video can gain millions of views and according to a study from researchers at King’s College London those who get their news primarily from social media are much more likely to believe in these outlandish theories and additionally, break the rules of lockdown. It also showed that YouTube viewers are more likely to buy into COVID-19 conspiracies than people who get their news through other social media platforms. The research focused on potential public health risks posed by online conspiracy theories surrounding the pandemic. The research surveyed 2,254 people who live in the UK ages 16-70 in May of this year.  They asked participants if they believed in several different conspiracy theories. Some of the conspiracy theories include: that there is no hard evidence of a coronavirus and coronavirus is linked to 5G.  YouTube was found to be the most associated with these conspiracy beliefs (Business Insider).  

Since February, YouTube has reported that they have removed over 200,000 videos on the topic of dangerous and misleading information about coronavirus (Reuters). With the rise of misinformation spreading across social media these large companies have been more too quick to get involved to stop this. Labels, warnings, and links to quality news sources and public health organizers have been added to content throughout platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Instagram. Lucky for the most part, ridiculous conspiracy theories have been managed and limited in popularity. In February of this year a number of these outrageous theories spread on YouTube, but more recently a hit video entitled “Plandemic” became popular which alleges that a cabal of elites is using the pandemic as a cover to profiteer and entrench their power. The video was quickly adopted and believed by groups like anti-vaccinators and the QAnon conspiracy group. The video features discredited scientist Dr. Judy Mikovis who became the star of coronavirus misinformation. Uploads of the “Plandemic” have over 8 million views across varying social media platforms. YouTube alone is the source of 7.1 million of those views before it was removed. Erin Gallagher, a social media researcher explains that, “The video spread from YouTube to Facebook thanks to highly active QAnon and conspiracy-related Facebook groups with tens of thousands of members which caused a massive cascade” (Verge). 

According to a BBC article the study published in the journal of Psychology Medicine found that, “There was a strong positive relationship between use of social media platforms as sources of knowledge about Covid-19 and holding one or more conspiracy beliefs," the study finds. "YouTube had the strongest association with conspiracy beliefs, followed by Facebook.” Interestingly, the research also found that those who left their homes with possible symptoms of COVID-19 were more than twice to three times as likely  than those who did not rely on Facebook and/or Youtube for news updates regarding the virus. A point emphasized from the study was that they held the opinion that social media companies like Facebook and Youtube need to do more to control this spread of false information. A spokesperson from Facebook said, “We have removed hundreds of thousands of Covid-19-related misinformation that could lead to imminent harm including posts…” (BBC). The opportunity for individuals to reach the masses with just a few clicks of a button is being abused by conspiracy theorists and are taking advantage of vulnerable audiences. 


Stakeholders:

With such a dense and complex case there are a variety of key stakeholders and decision makers at play. Stakeholders are those who may be affected or can affect company decisions. Firstly, the founders of the platform Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim, former PayPal employees. Google and it’s management are also important to mention as YouTube was bought by Google in 2006, just one year after it’s creation. YouTube has since operated as one of Google’s subsidiaries. This generally includes employees of Youtube (LLC) which is made up of managers, administrators, and other employees. 

Next, and arguably most important is the platform and internet users and creators. Copyright owners are also involved in this category in either the form of owners of copyrighted videos or music. Society and the platform audience are also part of those who may affect or be affected by YouTube decisions. 

Although YouTube is privately owned, the government is another thing to mention when discussing the topic. As mentioned previously, governmental and policy intervention is always at play or at least a topic of debate. This being said, other social media platforms and their owners and stakeholders can also be linked to those of YouTube not only because of how policies may impact YouTube as well, but the competitive aspect of business as well. 


Individualism

Individualism argues that the sole goal of business is centered around profit, thus meaning that the concern of business people is to maximize profits for the owner(s) and/or stockholders. When looking at the case from this perspective we would look at the way in which the conspiracy theorists are in a way stealing potential profit from YouTube. This is seen through the damage of the platform's reputation, combined with the need to spend more money on resources to control content coupled with any marketing and public statements from the company.  Milton Friedman, renowned Economist argues that the only social responsibility of business is to increase profits, “so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud” (DesJardins 54).  Friedman also views business should operate considering their desires which as a general desire is to make money and as much of it as possible. 

Applying this concept to the case we can see where an ethical argument arises, especially surrounding the principle that although business should maximize profits, it must do so in accordance with the law and free of deception. The key  conspiracy theorists involved in the case are clearly motivated by the desire of profit but in attempting to achieve this they use YouTube to spread deception. YouTube thus has the obligation to take this into consideration as they are going against the set terms and conditions of the site. Could YouTube ignore the problem based on a desire to maximize profits, of course, however when an ethical line is crossed it is their responsibility to consider this in alliance with individualism. While individualism is centered around personal and business profit it also clarifies that business must operate within the law. As seen with Tibor Machan’s individualism, business people can have other goals and they can be prioritized over the primary goal which is profit-maximizing. It is also important to consider that in the long run YouTube may actually zacheince the goal of maximizing profits through an indirect goal of creating a safe and reliable community of creators. 


Utilitarianism

When considering this case from a utilitarianism perspective it is inherently unethical because the goal is to maximize happiness in yourself and others. The spread of dangerous information to millions of vulnerable people throughout the world goes directly against this ideology. When looking at how YouTube addressed the situation it gets more complicated. There is a difficult balance between what is and what is not considered free speech and what type of content opposes the terms and conditions of the platform. YouTube in this case for the most part does align ethically with this perspective in the way that they are trying to ensure maximum happiness free of negative and dangerous content. 

According to John Stuart Mill on this ethical perspective happiness and pleasure are the only things of intrinsic value and in terms of morally there is no difference between individual happiness and that of others. Another important component of utilitarianism is that, “...we can determine the ethical significance of any action by looking at the consequences of that act...with the policy of “maximizing the overall good” or, in a slightly different version, of producing “the greatest good for the greatest number” (DesJardins 29). This is largely where the utilitarian perspective really aligns with the case because this is exactly how YouTube is reacting to the situation. The greatest good for the greatest number is exactly what is happening, as YouTube seems to prioritize how the negative content is impacting a large amount of people rather than focusing on how it may be affecting the few who are generating the content. 


Kantianism

A katianism perspective of this case would see YouTube as acting in line with the  kantian ethical principles, especially based on its emphasis on acting rationally. With the spike in Coronavirus cases and the connection between YouTube conspiracy viewers and those breaking quarantine restrictions, there is truly only one rational action which is to control and prevent the misinformation from being spread. 

More importantly YouTube, unlike many other big corporations, do not consider themselves exempt from rules. Infact, they actually hold themselves accountable in this case. It is not as if the government or other forces are instructing the company to remove the misinformation. Rather, YouTube has taken preventative measures such as adding warning labels to all coronavirus related content. These measures are in addition to their previous efforts to regulate, control, monitor, and remove content that goes against the terms of posting information. Another major principal of kantianism is to help individuals make rational decisions as well. So, not only is YouTube themselves acting both rational and consistent, they are attempting to help others do so as well. This is being done through the use of warnings and additionally providing reliable links to verified information. By engaging in these actions they are encouraging the platform audiences to be aware of potential misinformation and guiding them to factually accurate information on the virus and vaccines. 

The various different ways YouTube is attempting to control the content also aligns with respecting individual needs and differences. Because of the fact that a vast majority of the population with varying backgrounds and education levels has access to this free and easy to access information they are using not just one method of counteracting misformation.


Virtue Theory

The major concern embedded within virtue theory is how businesses are acting in the situation and not necessarily how it turns out. Whereas individualism focuses on the end goal of profit making there is less of an emphasis on final results and more so on character and actions. Virtue ethics, which is based on Aristotle's ethics looks at character traits and virtue that constitute a good and full human life (DesJardins 41). In this regard, looking at the case considering the ethical perspective of the virtue theory it seems that again YouTube does align ethically here for the most part. Just like with kantianism, rationality is a contributing aspect of the theory which states that people exercise rationality in order to function well and as a result live good lives. Once again we can see how YouTube complies with this in how they responded by deeming most of this harmful content against the rules of the platform. 

Virtue ethics is also based on the principle that those who function well and as a result live good lives will also lead happy lives. If these are all in line then one who lives a good life also functions well and is therefore happy. YouTube in this case demonstrates a skill in functioning both efficiently and functionally. Thus, according to virtue ethics the rest must also be true. YouTube since February has successfully removed over 200,000 of these videos which is an indicator of functioning well. Monitoring content on the abyss of the internet is not an easy task but they seem to be using their resources to engage in both rational and funcional means of removal. As explained with the Doctrine of the Mean there needs to be a balance  between extremes. If we apply this to the case YouTube does try and find a balance between allowing creators to continue to make content even if it is questionable while also removing those videos they deem to cross the line.  


Justified Ethics Evaluation: 

Although I am a firm believer in freedom of speech and the importance of having a platform where one is able to voice their opinions and share content, I also think YouTube is doing the correct things by censoring this type of misinformation. Coronavirus is a very serious problem and far too many people are being influenced by these conspiracy theories. As the study showed, especially those influenced by content found on YouTube they are more likely to violate the rules of lockdown. In the current age of mass media it is a near impossible task to monitor the content that spreads and once it's put on the internet it's there for good even if it has been removed by YouTube. 

I believe that the government should also take a more active role in counteracting the spread of this information. The more people that buy into this fake news, the worse off this country as a whole is. While I do believe that having a platform to be creative is important this is more so an issue of safety than freedom of speech 

I am overall impressed with the action taken on behalf of YouTube to combat the spread of this type of information. As previously discussed the conspiracy theorist and other creators who are hosting the content have sneaky, clever, and catchy ways of disguising the conspiracies as fact. With the existing YouTube algorithm and team which monitors the content they were able to successfully identify and remove many of the videos. The problem of the viral and lasting nature of the internet continues to exist and is making the job of YouTube and similar social media sites even harder especially at a time where doing so is much more vital. 


Action Plan:

Although YouTube has taken several steps to address the issues plaguing the platform, they are still lacking in several areas. The company successfully and most importantly has acknowledged and addressed the problem through various interviews and press statements. They have also additionally taken steps to remove and prevent misinformation. Since the increase in both coronavirus cases and the conspiracies that follow YouTube has announced its plans to further restrict and monitor the content. So, while these are good primary steps YouTube needs to not only give broad ways they are planning to change, but rather give specific steps and perhaps even alter their current business model. YouTube is known for its wide range of content and is often praised for the creation of a space that allows people to be creative and express their beliefs, opinions and passions. However, what is up for debate here is what the line needs to be drawn. 

Youtube's current mission statement is as follows,  “Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world. We believe that everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories.” (YouTube). They also cite four freedoms that define who they are: freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of opportunity, and freedom to belong. While these are great business ethics and principles it does somewhat contradict the inherent nature of this case. One could argue that the conspiracy videos are in fact complying with YouTube’s business model. 

YouTube is a very profitable business however this type of negative news surrounding the company may be hurting them by deterring audience members while simultaneously encouraging groups with malicious intent to swarm the platform. In order for them to not only remain profitable but increase profits and favorable public opinions centered around good ethics they should adhere to some of the following guidelines. 

Redefine their values and change how they address the problem: 

  1. Define freedom - while this is a primary principle of YouTube, it seems as though a few too many people have pushed the limits of what this means. We see the discussion of freedom of speech a frequent topic of debate and this is just that. There will always be people who wish to do harm but if YouTube wants to extinguish that they need to be more clear in who they are and what they believe in.

  2. Creativity and media - this is one area that seems to be missing in the case despite YouTube being a major part of that. As an extremely influential media company they should use this to their advantage and engage in creative problem solving with their own platform. Yes, they are removing videos and adding warning labels, but they have not addressed the issue in their own creative platform. If their audience are those who use social media, specifically YouTube then perhaps that is the most effective way to get their attention.

  3. Audience - in business understanding one’s audience and consumer market is an essential component to profit making. It seems that in this case YouTube needs to focus on not the huge and diverse audience base but on the ones who are most likely to believe, watch, engage, and create the misinformation. This may also aid in a more financially efficient plan. 

In order to restore the company to better public opinion, ethics and profits it is important to have a strong action plan. As an active user of both YouTube and similar social media platforms I have noticed the warning labels on content related to COVID-19. I think another thing they may need to do is make stricter policies on misinformation. As we saw with the interview featuring David-Bet, only one of the three videos were removed because it did not technically violate their policies. At least temporarily conspiracies about coronavirus should be banned if they are being disguised as the truth. With this type of content, including fake news in general it is often believed because it looks believable and it is posted on reliable (or seemingly reliable) websites. Many of us depend on YouTube as a source of learning and with misinformation sprinkled in this is problematic. 

Youtube itself should post its own content that is creatively marketed to inform people of correct information about the virus and deter people from falling into the trap of believing conspiracies. While it's true that these videos can get a lot of views and generate both money and traffic towards YouTube in the long run they will be more financially benefited by building a source and audience base centered around the truth. 

The actions taken thus far by YouTube are great first steps, but with the expanding problem it is clear that more needs to be done. Nowadays image and reputation can make or break a company and a controversy like this definitely impacts public opinion. With some more focus on the problem YouTube should have no problem restoring both its reputation and financial. 


As depicted and explained throughout the case YouTube has taken extra precautions in monitoring the content that conflicts with their community guidelines.



The conspiracy video "Plandemic" produced by Mikki Willis, promoted and spread dangerous misinformation to millions of people before it was removed. 


Bibliography:

Ball, P., & Maxmen, A. (2020, May 27). The Epic Battle Against Coronavirus

Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01452-z


Culliford, E., & Dave, P. (2020, October 14). YouTube Bans Coronavirus Vaccine

Misinformation. https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-youtube-int/youtube-bans-coronavirus-vaccine-misinformation-idUSKBN26Z21R


DesJardins, Joseph.An Introduction to Business Ethics.New York City:

The McGraw Hill Companies Inc, 2014


Easton, M. (2020, June 18). Coronavirus: Social media 'spreading virus conspiracy

theories'. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-53085640


Hamilton, I. (2020, June 19). People Who believe wild coronavirus conspiracy theories

rely on YouTube for most of their information on the pandemic. https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-2020-6


Newton, C. (2020, May 12). How the 'Plandemic' video hoax went viral. https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/12/21254184/how-plandemic-went-viral-facebook-youtube


QAnon: YouTube moves to purge 'harmful conspiracy theories'. (2020, October 15).

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54562802