YouTube: Misinformation Controversy (2020-2022)

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

Stakeholders are individuals that are involved in the operations of a business. The Stakeholder Theory is the theory that holds business managers responsible for balancing the interest of stakeholders in relation to the business. The stakeholders involved in YouTube are content creators, viewers, users, subscribers, advertisers, and employees of the company. These groups share common interest in the services YouTube offers, hence their involvement with the company. Susan Wojcicki is the Chief Executive Officer of YouTube, and according to Business Insider she oversees nearly 5,700 employees. In the year 2020, during the presidential election, it was forecasted that there were 2,132,010,000 users YouTube users worldwide. It was then forecasted that there would be 2,436,910,000 users in the year 2022 (Statista). In relation to the misinformation controversy with YouTube and the 2020 Presidential election, many stakeholders were controlled heavily by YouTube executives. On December 9, 2020, YouTube released a statement stating that they banned nearly 8,000 channels (YouTube). Many users and content creators were upset with the choices made my YouTube and felt their rights were violated. According to the Stakeholder Theory, YouTube needs to find a balance between the interests of their stakeholders and what is best for their business. Ideally, YouTube pleases all their users with no issues, and it does not impact the organization in a negative way. Once users begin promoting false information, it forces YouTube to step in to protect the integrity of their business. YouTube received backlash from non-stakeholders because of their lack of action regarding the misinformation scandals. Once the company did step in, they upset those associated with their business.

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).

Ozy Media’s Executive Dishonesty: YouTube, A&E, and Viewership (February 2021)

 Ozy Media’s Executive Dishonesty: YouTube, A&E, and Viewership (February 2021)

Case Controversy

            When Ozy Media was launched in September 2013 by Carlos Watson and Samir Rao, they envisioned themselves as “the new and the next”. They wanted to differentiate themselves by creating an unconventional media company that would focus on topics that would appeal to a diverse group of millennials. Watson and Rao set out to supply content not provided by mainstream news organizations. While going against the grain in an industry can result in innovation and success, it can also result in failure. Unfortunately, in the case of Ozy Media, going against the traditional model for a news organization resulted in failure. Dishonest leadership repeatedly landed Ozy Media in hot water and eventually led to the company ceasing all operations on October 8, 2021. 

            Looking back on Ozy Media’s brief history, it is easy to see from the very beginning how this company ended up where it is today. Just two years after they began operations, questions surrounding Ozy’s viewership began to arise within the company. Eugene Watson, one of Ozy’s first employees, kept hearing Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Carlos Watson boast of Ozy’s high viewership. When he heard the figures, he thought they seemed high, and he decided to compare Watson’s claims to public sources of audience data. From this comparison, he concluded that Ozy was a “Potemkin village” (The New York Times). This obvious deception was only the beginning of the lies perpetuated by Ozy executives. Shortly after these questions were raised Ozy came under fire from BuzzFeed in the summer of 2017. They reported that Ozy was among several companies buying web traffic from fraudulent sources. Ozy published a group of articles in collaboration with JP Morgan. They were soon ranked among Ozy’s most-viewed articles, but much of the traffic to these articles was fraudulent according to industry standards. The traffic was purchased and delivered by a system that automatically loaded specific webpages and redirects traffic between participating websites to quickly rack up views without any human action (BuzzFeed). Ozy also bought a portion of its audience from ad networks that specialized in pop-under browser windows that are opened on users when they visit other websites (BuzzFeed). When this information was brought forth, Ozy claimed they were unaware that the audience was invalid when they purchased it. Ozy also stated that the traffic was not counted as part of their campaign with JP Morgan, and that they used the paid traffic to try to grow an email subscription list. 

These responses from executives did not seem in line with what Ozy was doing regarding the traffic numbers. On the company’s website, it said that they were reaching an aggregate of 40 million people per month through various channels. However, data from Quantcast, a public service Ozy was using to measure their traffic, said the website was reaching only 2.5 million people per month (BuzzFeed). It was also revealed that between June and October 2017, roughly 2 million visits came from domains connected to a company called ScreenRush. This traffic was sent to specific articles on Ozy, many of which were part of the JP Morgan campaign. Investigations into this traffic have determined that ScreenRush is an invalid and fraudulent source of traffic. When this information was brought forth, Ozy immediately stopped working with ScreenRush and experienced a significant drop in desktop referral traffic. These inconsistencies between what management was reporting and what was going on within the company was a major red flag, but Carlos Watson’s charisma and influence helped Ozy maintain support from powerful investors. 

The questions surrounding Ozy’s traffic numbers lingered for the next few years. Ozy maintained a respectable public image due mainly to the charm of Carlos Watson, but in the summer of 2020 the first major controversy plagued the company. In June 2020, Ozy began working on “The Carlos Watson Show,” a daily half-hour interview program hosted by the Ozy CEO. This show would feature prominent celebrities and politicians with the goal of having meaningful conversations about important social justice issues. In order to ensure that the show was high quality, Watson and Rao sought out an experienced executive producer. This led them to Emmy-winner Brad Bessey. Bessey was eager to make an impact socially in the wake of COVID-19 and George Floyd, so he happily agreed to produce the show. He was told by Watson and Rao that the show would appear in prime time on A&E in August 2020. This was an amazing opportunity for Bessey, but some red flags arose early in the production process. 

To start, Bessey had no contact with A&E executives during the making of the show. Watson and Rao claimed that A&E only wanted to talk to them, but Bessey knew several executives at A&E. He offered to reach out to them, but Watson and Rao insisted he did not. The second warning sign that something was amiss was that A&E had scheduled the show “Hoarders” for the time slot that was supposedly meant for “The Carlos Watson Show.” Despite these concerns, Bessey continued working with Ozy because he was so eager to make an impact. Watson’s guests were always told that the show would air on A&E, and longtime writer Heidi Clements was also told this when she started working on “The Carlos Watson Show.” When Bessey finally acted on his suspicions and reached out to A&E at the end of July, he was informed that they had said no to the show before taping began. Shortly after this, Bessey and Clements resigned and said goodbye to Watson and Rao. In Bessey’s farewell email to the executives, he wrote, “You are playing a dangerous game with the truth. The consequences of offering an A&E show to guests when we don’t have one to offer are catastrophic for Ozy and for me (The New York Times).” He informed the rest of the show's staff that he was leaving during a Zoom call in which Watson was present. He also revealed that the show would not appear on A&E, to which Watson responded that the show would “eventually” end up on the network. 

Ozy managed to recover from this incident, and operated problem-free until January 2021 when Goldman Sachs began talks with Watson about a potential $40 million investment in the company. The Ozy executives had boasted to the Goldman bankers that they had a large audience and a great relationship with YouTube. A video conference call was arranged by Ozy for February 2, 2021, to speak with the Goldman Sachs asset management division and YouTube. Alex Piper, the head of unscripted programming for YouTube Originals, was scheduled to represent YouTube. He said he was running late to the call, so he suggested that the meeting be moved to a call with no video. Once everyone had made the switch, Piper told the Goldman team all the things they wanted to hear so that they would make the decision to invest in Ozy. This sounded great, but as he spoke, the Goldman team seemed to think that his voice sounded digitally altered. 

After the meeting, one of the Goldman bankers reached out to Piper’s assistant at YouTube via email. Piper, confused by the email, told the Goldman banker that he had never spoken to her before. Someone else had been on the call impersonating him in order to get the investment. YouTube’s security team began investigating immediately. Within days Watson apologized profusely to Goldman Sachs, and Samir Rao, Ozy’s Chief Operating Officer (COO) was outed as the impersonator. Watson attributed this incident to Rao’s mental health issues. After the call, Goldman Sachs took no further action, but the security team at Google determined that a crime may have been committed. Google alerted the FBI and Goldman Sachs received an inquiry from federal law enforcement officials. There are real legal implications for Ozy in this situation. Tricking potential investors while raising capital would be grounds for criminal charges of wire fraud and securities fraud, as well as a potential civil suit from the Securities and Exchange Commission (The New York Times). 

This phone call was the controversy that led to the end of Ozy Media. Shortly after the New York Times reported on this incident at the end of September 2021, the chairman of the Ozy Board resigned. Ozy’s top anchor Katty Kay left the company, and key advertisers including Facebook and Walmart, hit the brakes on their spending with Ozy. After this backlash from the news of the call, Watson and Michael Moe, Ozy’s other remaining board member, concluded that the company would be unable to recover. A farewell statement was issued by an Ozy spokeswoman, and Ozy Media officially ceased operations. 

Stakeholders

         Stakeholders within Ozy include Carlos Watson and Samir Rao, Investors (and Former Investors) like the Emerson Collective and Goldman Sachs, Employees of the Company (reporters, editors, columnists, anchors, etc.), and Media Consumers. Stakeholders represent entities or people that have a direct interest in the success of a business. Watson and Rao would clearly have an interest in the success of their own company, hoping to profit off it. Investors fall into a similar category, hoping to turn their investments into profit for themselves. Their ability to profit off their investment comes with the need for the business they are investing in to profit itself. In the Ozy scandal, investors hold a larger stake since they seem to be the victim of Ozy’s fraudulent actions. Employees hold a stake in the company because their ability to keep their jobs comes as a direct need for the company to stay alive. Furthermore, with Ozy’s employees being a collection of journalists, the success of the company will also affect the success of the employees’ popularity in journalism. Lastly, consumers of the content that Ozy produces hold a stake. Consumers are likely to consume content if the company that produced it is ethical and if their work is consumable. These stakeholders will be considered in a utilitarian analysis of Ozy.

Individualism

Individualism states that companies should maximize profits for stockholders within the constraints of the law. This is best said by Milton 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). My theory, individualism would interpret the Ozy media case in terms of profit and the boundaries of the law such as deception and fraud. 

So, does Ozy media maximize its profits? In the short-term when they started most definitely, they maximized profits by lying and being deceitful about their subscribers, readers, views, and engagement in the company overall. This led to investors thinking that they were much bigger of a company than they actually were. In the long-term people started to catch on, and they did not maximize profits. They couldn’t maximize profits because their reputation has been damaged from being deceitful and in turn Ozy is stopping production and shutting down which leads to no more profits.

Is it within the law? Hasn’t been fully determined if they are within the law yet. Ozy is being investigated for acts of fraud and being sued by companies such as Lifeline Legacy Holdings “claiming that it was misled when it made an initial $2 million investment in the company earlier this year” (Ellison, Sarah, & Barr 2021). Even with lawsuits Ozy media is innocent until proven guilty in US court systems, but they appear to be breaking the law. 

From an individualism view it is unethical because they are probably breaking the law and definitely not maximizing profits for shareholders due to the fact that they are shut down. The only permissible action would be them being truthful and maximizing profit by doing so.  Breaking the law and the whole scandal is impermissible because if everyone did this there would be a lot of investigations and fraud and in turn many shut down businesses and bad reputations leading to less investments. Less investments means less profit and money that a company can use to invest into itself and grow profits. If you cannot make money, you won’t have a business. 

Utilitarianism

Utilitarians believe that actions are ethical and permissible if they maximize the overall good or, the word that most tend to hear, happiness. Actions are considered ethical if the consequences of those actions lead to most people impacted by them being left “happy.” In other words, happiness is pleasure, and it is the only thing of intrinsic value. John Stuart Mill, the founder of utilitarianism, recognizes that happiness may have a different definition for different people. He uses this notion to defend democracy, claiming that “the best means for attaining [maximized happiness] is an educated citizenry making decisions through a majority-rule democracy” (DesJardins 2014, pg. 32). It is also important to note that utilitarianism functions as a consequential theory, recognizing both the short term and long-term consequences of actions. The actions that are best are those that leave the largest number of people “happy,” meaning that all available actions should be considered.

         How does utilitarianism consider the Ozy scandal? After analysis, it will be found that Ozy’s actions are unethical. Readers may naturally assume such a statement – all forms of fraud should be inherently unethical. In application, utilitarianism will teach readers why such is the case.

         When considering the Ozy scandal through the scope of utilitarianism, one must consider if the business’ activities resulted in a happy majority. In the short term, Ozy’s fraudulent actions certainly generated happiness. The company was able to grow, consumers got to enjoy the content, investors saw profit, and employees held their jobs at a recognizable media source. While the short term consequences yielded happiness for the majority, it is the long term consequences that lead to the conclusion that Ozy’s actions are unethical.

         As a result of the fraudulent actions, Ozy inevitably lost lots of trust, investments, employees, and consumers. Investors, like LifeLine, sought to reclaim investments via legal action, signaling that they were unhappy with their investment and Ozy’s actions. Employees were certainly unhappy when the fraud came to fruition, as outlined by the anonymous allegations of email fraud and Fouriezos’ statement. Consumers were also certainly unhappy, as people tend to consume less of a product if they find out that that product was produced because of scandalous or fraudulent actions. With the fall of investors and profit to the company, Watson and Rao are also certain to be unhappy. This does not mean to say, however, that Ozy’s actions were at first ethical, and only became unethical when the fraud came into the public eye. Ozy’s actions were always unethical, but they were only able to be labeled as such once people recognized what the exact actions were.

         While Ozy’s actions are unethical because they did not achieve the goal of maximizing happiness, utilitarianism says that one must also consider whether there was another option that could have produced more happiness. If no such action existed, then the actions taken by Ozy are ethical. However, as seen in this case, an alternative action did exist. If Ozy had decided to shut its doors earlier or if they had sought to continue practicing without committing fraud, there is a high likelihood that a majority of people would have been left happier.

         If the use of simple utilitarianism does not suffice the reader in this instance, consider an alternative form of utilitarianism created by Louis Lyons. In his book Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism, Lyons outlines a distinction between simple utilitarianism and general utilitarianism. Determining whether an action is ethical based on the prior questions considered falls into the category of simple utilitarianism. Then what is general utilitarianism? Lyons defines it as a “concern [for] the total effects that could be produced if all acts similar to the one in question… actually were performed” (Lyons 1965, pg. 3). To this degree, general utilitarianism suggests that an action is ethical or unethical when it is considered through a general scope. In other words, if other entities were to perform a similar action, would happiness be maximized? Considering Ozy’s fraudulent actions, the answer would again be no. If all businesses participated in fraudulent actions, the collapse of the free market would likely be seen. With nothing but scandal running rampant in the markets, no person would want to engage with it, resulting in displeasure.

         When applying utilitarianism to Ozy, through its many broad scopes, it can clearly be purported that their actions were unethical. Not many would question such a premise, but nonetheless, the Ozy scandal teaches why it is important to consider the broadness of utilitarian ethics. Utilitarianism does not always give a definitive answer, but that is the point. Actions that people view as ethical in the present may be viewed as unethical in the future. By following what makes the majority happy, utilitarianism allows for an action’s ethicalness to change with time. In recognizing the fraud in this case across Ozy’s eight years in business, and putting the business through the utilitarian wringer, it is thus concluded that the actions taken by Ozy are hereby unethical and impermissible under utilitarian standards.

Kantianism

            A Kantian would view the actions of Ozy Media’s leaders as unethical and impermissible. Under Kantianism, you must never treat people as a mere means, but also as an end. This is a version of the “formula of humanity.” When an action fails the categorical imperative test, it is impermissible, and vice versa. Businesses should act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices. Lying, cheating, and manipulation are never valid ways to get what you want under Kantianism (Salazar, 17). When making decisions, consequences are not the most important, but rather the “Good Will.” Only people with freedom, the ability to reason, and the ability to think and act on their reasons can have Good Will (Salazar, 21). Having a Good Will requires that people have good intentions and use good reasoning to take actions that will make their intentions effective. In the case of Ozy Media, Carlos Watson and Samir Rao were extremely unethical and took many actions that are impermissible in the view of a Kantian. 

            When examining the lies that Carlos Watson told about Ozy Media’s viewership, it is easy to analyze and quickly conclude that these actions are impermissible from a Kantian perspective. Watson had always wanted to be a television star, so when he started Ozy, he wanted to do everything he could to make his dream a reality. However, when his company struggled to gain significant viewership, he lied about their numbers in order to keep investors on board and ensure that his company would not fail. His motivations are selfish, and he is not respecting the autonomy of his investors, because they are influenced by false information. The consequences for those who invest a lot of money into his company are not important to Watson.

            The A&E controversy is also impermissible when examined through the lens of Kantianism.  Watson knew from the very start that “The Carlos Watson Show” would never be on A&E. Despite this, in order to get a better production crew for his show, he told award-winning executive producer Brad Bessey that the show would appear on the network. Watson’s motivations are once again his own interests. He does not have any regard for Brad Bessey’s autonomy as an individual. He is clearly treating Bessey as a mere means to achieve a higher-quality production. 

            Finally, the Goldman Sachs and YouTube controversy is once again another impermissible action taken by Ozy executives. During the conference call, Samir Rao impersonated Alex Piper in order to get a $40 million investment from Goldman Sachs. This is another example of the Ozy executives treating people as means to their ends. By impersonating him and telling the Goldman Sachs executives things that would make them decide to invest. They show no regard for the autonomy of Alex Piper. He could have easily told the investors the truth himself, but Ozy exploited him for financial gain. They also show blatant disregard for the autonomy of Goldman Sachs. By lying about their viewers and their relationship with YouTube, they took away the Sachs teams’ ability to make their own decision based on the facts. 

            It is clear to see that these actions are impermissible from a Kantian perspective. The executives repeatedly used people to achieve their ends. Nothing they did was motivated by the Good Will that Immanuel Kant talked about when he originated his theory. All the exploitation was to make Ozy look good and to satisfy the selfish desires of Samir Rao and Carlos Watson. 

Virtue Theory

         Virtue theory focuses mainly on rationality regarding functioning well and living out your purpose. Based on functionalism, people or companies exercise rationality as a reason for existing and purpose and goodness based on virtues. These virtues are characteristics that allow us to be rational and flourish within society. To flourish in society, you must get along with everyone in society. People or companies who live good lives by functioning well will certainly also live happy lives. The four main virtues that enable functioning well and living out purpose are: courage, honesty, temperance/self-control, and finally justice/ fairness.

         In terms of Virtue Theory and Ozy Media, the people working there fail to fit most of the main virtues. In terms of courage the only courageous action was when Watson changed his decision to close Ozy and referenced the scandal as a Lazarus moment (Simonetti 2021). He also called the incident tragic and that he did not know that his co-founder was going to impersonate the YouTube executive. This demonstrates courage as Watson stood up for what he believed in, that Ozy is a great company, in front of millions of Today Show viewers. In terms of honesty, this is the virtue that Ozy Media lacked the most. The biggest example of dishonesty was when it was discovered that the company’s co-founder and COO Samir Rao had impersonated a YouTube executive during a conference call. It is also unknown if Watson really was unaware of this, as he said he was, and it is up for interpretation. This wrongful impersonation also depicts the opposite of fairness virtue. It is unfair that Ozy Media tried to deceptively gain a $40 million investment using the tactics that they used. It is unfair to all the honest companies out there who go about investment processes in a fair and official manner. Lastly, in terms of self-control/ temperance, the rash decision by Watson to close Ozy’s doors right after the scandal came out showed that they lacked self-control and temperance because they were so quick to make that decision. Important executives were resigning, and Watson shut down the company all just to change his mind publicly, just days later on live TV.  Ozy Media failed to enable their function in society, and they failed to exercise their rationality because they were not virtuous in their decision making, therefore people like Samir Rao are not virtuous, and in fact vicious.

Action Plan

Ozy Media's current issues revolve around the dishonesty of their executives.Carlos Watson and Samir Rao, the CEO and COO of Ozy respectively, have repeatedly inflated the viewership and engagement numbers on their articles and videos. Multiple employees have revealed that this has been a problem within the company since around 2015. Ozy also was involved in two major controversie. One involved Brad Bessey, an award winning executive producer, who was lied to by Watson about “The Carlos Watson Show” being aired on A&E. The second controversy involved Samir Rao impersonating a YouTube executive in order to attain a $40 million dollar investment into the company from Goldman Sachs. 

Ozy Media’s mission moving forward will be to captivate readers with the most fascinating stories the world has to offer without compromising the truth. Ozy’s mission remains the same, but we will not deceive the public in any way while trying to provide interesting news stories to curious people all over the world.

Some guiding values that Ozy should stick to as they progress forward and attempt to get back on their feet include honesty and integrity, universality, and accountability. As seen with the scandal, the biggest problem that the company must overcome is a tarnished reputation due to fraudulence in investing practices. If there is to be any change in the company, executives like Watson must swerved from fraudulent practices and show that they are trustworthy. By promoting honesty and integrity, Ozy can begin promoting new values that would please the community that has been disrupted as a result of the fraudulence. In terms of universality, the company’s original mission statement was to provide a range of content to all people to keep them informed in many aspects of the world, including, but not limited to, politics and pop culture. By committing to a value of universality, Ozy will display that they truly are dedicated to the mission that they have sought to accomplish. The last, and most notable, value that Ozy must follow is accountability. Thus far, Carlos Watson has attempted to downplay the scandal and undermine its importance. Instead of taking accountability, Watson has sought to keep doors open and move forward with little recognition of its practices. If Ozy is truly going to succeed as it moves on from these accusations, taking accountability will be necessary to regain trust from investors and consumers alike.

Ozy can ensure ethical productivity by hiring independent auditors to attend investment meetings and check up on the company's financial position quarterly. They can also utilize only one public source of viewership and engagement data so the public is actually informed about the real numbers. This way they can make the choice of whether to invest or not based on real information. Ozy can hold meetings with their current employees and set a new status quo regarding honesty within the company. 

By being honest and not deceptive in their practices, business productivity will increase again. Customers and the general public will gain the trust of Ozy Media again, and profits will in turn be promoted. It is necessary for Ozy to follow their new values, in order to see positive results. By being honest with potential investors, Ozy will be more likely to fairly gain investments. It is also important for Ozy to not inflate their viewership statistics, as this was another unethical method of false publicity and deception. 

Matthew Roath, Joe Shea, Owen Harding, Kyle Burnham

 

References

Associated Press, The. “After a Week of Scandal, the CEO of OZY Media Says He Now Hopes to Stay in Business.” NPR, October 4, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/04/1043168458/ozy-media-carlos-watson-plans-to-stay-in-business.

“Carlos Watson Show, The.” YouTube, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyF0994XbriKL_Vss0fTUMw.

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

Ellison, Sarah, and Jeremy Barr. “Ozy Media's Audience Was Mostly a Mirage. Even in Scandal, Founder Carlos Watson Is Looking for Opportunity.” The Washington Post, October 6, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/10/05/carlos-watson-ozy-media-today/.

Folkenflik, David. “Ozy Shuts down after Accusations of Deceit, as High-Profile Backers Peel Away.” NPR. NPR, October 2, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/10/02/1042547742/ozy-shuts-down.

Godoy, Jody. “Investor Sues Ozy Media for Fraud over Founder's Fake Call.” Reuters, October 5, 2021. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/investor-sues-ozy-media-fraud-over-founders-fake-call-2021-10-05/.

Hayes, Dade. “Ozy Media to Shutter after Allegations of Fraud and Other Misdeeds.” Deadline. Deadline, October 1, 2021. https://deadline.com/2021/10/ozy-media-to-shut-down-carlos-watson-1234848287/#!

Jbursz. “Ozy Media CEO Claims His Scandal-Ridden Company Will Reopen, but Doesn't Explain How.” CNBC. CNBC, October 4, 2021. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/04/ozy-media-ceo-carlos-watson-says-the-company-isnt-shutting-down.html. 

LifeLine Legacy Holdings LLC vs. Ozy Media (2021).

Lyons, David. Forms and Limits of Utilitarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965.

McEvoy, Jemima. “Ex-Ozy Media Employees Say Company Used Dubious Tactics to Build Newsletter Following, Raising Legal Questions.” Forbes, October 8, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2021/10/08/ex-ozy-media-employees-say-company-used-dubious-tactics-to-build-newsletter-following-raising-legal-questions/amp/.

McKenna, Francine. “Introducing Ozy Media: Following the Formula of ‘Fake It until You Make It’ Then Collapse in Alleged Fraud.” The Dig. The Dig, October 11, 2021. https://thedig.substack.com/p/introducing-ozy-media-following-the.

Mullin, Benjamin. “WSJ News Exclusive | OZY Media Board Announces Investigation of Business Practices.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 29 Sept. 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/ozy-media-board-announces-investigation-of-business-practices-11632865291?mod=Searchresults_pos6&page=1.

“Ozy Fest About.” OZY, https://www.ozy.com/ozyfestabout/. 

“Ozy Media Suspends Samir Rao after Report of Fake Investor Call, and Katty Kay Resigns.” Ad Age, 29 Sept. 2021, https://adage.com/article/digital-marketing-ad-tech-news/ozy-suspends-samir-rao-after-report-fake-investor-call/2369551.

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

Schwartz, Brian. “Sharon Osbourne Says Ozy Media Founder Carlos Watson Lied When He Claimed the Osbournes Invested in His Company.” CNBC. CNBC, October 2, 2021. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/30/ozy-media-founder-carlos-watson-lied-about-investment-sharon-osbourne-says.html.

Silverman, Craig. “These Publishers Bought Millions of Website Visits They Later Found out Were Fraudulent.” BuzzFeed News, BuzzFeed News, 27 Dec. 2017, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/these-publishers-bought-millions-of-website-visits-they.

Simonetti, Isabella. “What You Should Know about the OZY Media Meltdown.” Observer. Observer, October 8, 2021. https://observer.com/2021/10/ozy-media-meltdown-carlos-watson-goldman-sachs/.

Smith, Ben. “Goldman Sachs, Ozy Media and a $40 Million Conference Call Gone Wrong.” The New York Times. The New York Times, September 27, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/26/business/media/ozy-media-goldman-sachs.html.

Smith, Ben. “Ozy Built a TV Show on a False Claim, Says Its Former Producer.” The New York Times, September 30, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/business/media/ozy-media-carlos-watson.html. 

Smith, Ben, and Katie Robertson. “Ozy Media, Once a Darling of Investors, Shuts down in a Swift Unraveling.” The New York Times, October 1, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/01/business/media/ozy-media-carlos-watson.html.

Watson, Carlos. “A Modern Media Company.” OZY. Accessed November 13, 2021. https://www.ozy.com/pg/about-us/.

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