Showing posts with label blogger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label blogger. Show all posts

Friday, May 6, 2022

LinkedIn Fake Profiles (2022)

Pictured: LinkedIn profile pictures recognition for better results.
Ethics Case Controversy

LinkedIn is one of the country’s biggest and most helpful online services when it comes to seeking employment and professional networking. They are known to bring users to real employers and help them with career success in a very safe way. At the beginning of 2022, this changed drastically when it was found that many profiles that were being used on LinkedIn were fake accounts. Not only do these fake accounts violate LinkedIn’s policies, but it also makes it an unsafe environment for users who can have their identity stolen and tricked into thinking they are legit accounts. LinkedIn is now taking action to delete many accounts and has removed more than 15 million since the beginning of 2021 (Bond, 2022). This is just one step further to removing all these accounts and LinkedIn is working hard to try to delete them all, but new technologies are making it more difficult.

At the beginning of 2022, a veteran researcher, Renee DiResta, had noticed something off from one of the profiles she had gotten a message from on LinkedIn. The first thing she noticed is that the profile picture looked like it was very fake. For example, the profile that went by the name of Ramsey had a picture that was missing an earring on one side, had hair blurring into the background, the placement of the eyes was exactly centered, and the background was blurry. With a combination of all these details, it showed DiResta that she was dealing with a computer-generated AI profile picture. DiResta told one of her colleagues, Josh Goldstein, about her findings and worked with Stanford researchers on an investigation to find more fake profiles. After doing this they ended up uncovering more than 1,000 LinkedIn profiles using what appeared to be faces created by artificial intelligence (Lusina, 2022).

LinkedIn has acknowledged and has been committed to removing these accounts. They have done so and have removed millions of fake accounts from when the problem arose. Although they made great efforts to remove the accounts from the Social Networking website some accounts have now adapted and are relatively genuine and difficult to decipher from a true user. There are some common things that LinkedIn Consultants Trainers (Goodman) tell the users to look out for. Particularly things that include, profile pictures that look too good to be true, receiving multiple invitations from the same company, a suspicious work history (Look for endorsements from the employers or employees they may work with), and profiles with too many connections can be too good to be true are all possibilities and things to look out for. Many users receive messages that they are qualified for the offers.

Pictured: Users receive a message that the sender has an offer for them.

After more research about the fake accounts was done, it became prominent that the technology being used to generate the fake profile pictures are Generative Adversarial Network (GAN). This technology uses real pictures to create fake AI humans which can be indistinguishable from real humans. Out of the 1,000 accounts discovered by DiResta that used GAN, 70 of these accounts linked back to real companies (Slater-Robins, 2022). When they reached out to these companies to ask about the fake profiles, many of them had no clue about them and stated that they hired other companies to help with finding potential customers. One of the companies that had accounts was called RingCentral. They had many fake profiles that said they worked there but the company claimed that they never worked there. RingCentral said they had hired other people to help with finding potential customers and one of these companies used GAN (Bond, 2022). Many other companies had the same response showing that this is a big issue that LinkedIn must find a way to deal with.

There are a lot of CEOs for companies that are unaware of the fake accounts saying they are associating with the company as they believe they are truly real accounts. They believed that they were real people and that they were just trying to connect with the company to obtain opportunities, not deceive the real users trying to obtain opportunities. A lot of fake accounts have become skilled and advanced in deception. Many people as stated by NPR have said the fake accounts seemed to be of someone familiar not knowing that the photo was generated by a computer and is completely fake. Many people don’t even know they are connecting with these fake accounts and are under the assumption that they are truly real. “LinkedIn removed more than 15 million fake accounts in the first six months of 2021, according to its most recent transparency report. It says the vast majority were detected during signup, and most of the rest were found by its automatic systems before any LinkedIn member reported them.” (Bond) LinkedIn is committed to trying to keep its Social Networking platform safe and accessible to all users. But AI is becoming so advanced that it is making it difficult to detect all of the fake accounts they have been plagued with over the years.

Stakeholders
There are various stakeholders in this case of the LinkedIn profiles which the fake accounts are affecting. Beginning with the actual user. It is a security risk to the everyday professional who is just trying to build their network and create opportunities for themselves down the road. It is difficult to do so when those networks are manipulated and taken advantage of by fake accounts. Next would be employers trying to access new connections. Employers need to be careful as they may be connecting with fake accounts and that may hurt their reputation. Those fake accounts could deceive and manipulate someone who is truly interested in working for the company. There are about 645 million users who are currently seeking job opportunities, and most of them are LinkedIn stakeholders. Whenever someone creates a new account on LinkedIn, he or she is actually investing his time to create a profile and putting his or her personal information so the employers can see their information and contact them or based on their skills and experience. If one person experiences getting into fraud by the fake users on the social media platform, he or she will be afraid to use that platform. Ring Central’s image was also hurt by this, having they were exposed for authorizing the use of fake LinkedIn profiles to get into contact with consumers and misleading the users of LinkedIn. Air Sales and Renova Digital were talked about in the article as well, being they were just two of the many different companies using fake profiles.
Individualism

The ethical theory that will be discussed for this ethical based issue is Individualism. This includes Friedman’s Theory and Machan’s Individualism. Friedman’s individualism theory is, “The only goal of business is to profit, so the only obligation that the business person has is to maximize profit for the owner or the stockholders within the law or the rules of the game.” (Salazar 11:10) Friedman’s Individualism theory explains that businesses need to do just what needs to be done to keep the business running so long that the business profits. This view is extended to if any action is taken without considering profit, then that is stealing from the owner of the company. It is a very persuasive view. Overall, the points of view are outdated and not aligned with today's social and ethical norms. Next is Machan’s Individualistic theories. His theories involve, “The only direct goal of business is to profit, and the primary obligation of the business person is to maximize profit within the law, but: 1. The direct goal of profiting may need to be met by indirect goals not aimed at profiting. 2. Business people may have other goals and those goals may at times be prioritized over the goals of profit-maximizing.” (Salazar 24:00) These goals are aligned slightly differently from Friedman’s point of view. Friedman’s focus is profit, whereas Machan has a slightly different approach in which the main goal is profit but this may be by completing indirect goals. This can include social-economic or environmental goals that can improve the image of the company as well as bring in profit for the company.

         How does Individualism apply to the issue that LinkedIn is focusing on maybe a little tricky to decipher? From Friedman’s perspective, LinkedIn may be operating for a profit which is against the law and the rules of the game. The lack of user privacy would be the factor that is being violated in an individualist’s mind. These fake accounts are a danger and risk to professionals across the world. The individualistic approach would look at this case to be impermissible. This is because the company is not doing everything, it possibly can to protect the privacy of its professionals. This is hurting their image as these fake accounts continue to deceive and mislead the professionals trying to make a living and open new doors or opportunities. “A recent study found faces made by AI have become "indistinguishable" from real faces. People have just a 50% chance of guessing correctly whether a face was created by a computer — no better than flipping a coin.” (Bond) It is almost impossible for those just looking quickly at the profile to distinguish it from real or fake. Most people’s minds will gravitate towards believing that it is a truthful account or maybe even someone that looks familiar to them. The Machan Individualist would look at this the same way. LinkedIn cannot get a good read on what accounts are fake and what ones are real because of how advanced Artificial Intelligence is getting. They try to detect all the fake accounts they possibly can at the creation of the account. But because AI is so advanced now it is difficult for them to detect all the fake accounts. To a modern individualist, LinkedIn would be ethically responsible for wasting money by not doing enough to protect their user’s privacy, as well as portraying a bad image and losing important relationships with their professionals on their Social Networking website.
Utilitarianism

A utilitarian would view LinkedIn’s way of handling the situation as a good, ethical way to do so. In utilitarianism, it states, “Happiness or pleasure are the only things of intrinsic value” (Salazar, 6). This means that from a utilitarian point of view if whatever is being done creates happiness, then that is the right thing to do. On the contrary, if something makes somebody not pleased or unhappy then it is the wrong thing to do. In this case, happiness is in the process of being maximized for mostly all the stakeholders.

LinkedIn (Company): After this case is resolved and LinkedIn takes care of all the fake profiles and accounts then they will be both negatively and positively impacted from a utilitarian point of view. Now they are most likely making users unhappy which causes them to also deal with the stress of making the website safe and living up to the policies they have. Once all of this is dealt with then they will be happy again to have gotten rid of the false information and fake accounts.

LinkedIn Users: Similarly, to the company, LinkedIn users are most likely upset and negatively impacted at the moment because they are getting a lot of spam accounts and messages. They also must deal with the risk of accidentally getting their information leaked and their identity stolen. Currently, this situation goes against a utilitarian point of view, but once LinkedIn continues to delete accounts and make its platform safe again, this will ultimately make the users happy again as well.

Companies Using Fake Profiles: Currently, these companies are very happy with being able to use many fake profiles. This gives them a lot of advantages such as saving money, reaching out to more customers, and getting a boost in sales. This could change once LinkedIn deletes more accounts because then they might be held accountable for using these fake profiles even if it’s because they hired a company that set them up for them.

Future Shareholders: Depending on how this situation unfolds and how LinkedIn handles it can affect how the future shareholders stand on the situation. For example, this could well with utilitarianism because if LinkedIn fixes the situation fast and shows that it is a reliable company, more people might trust it again and join which could help improve the stock. On the contrary, if more and more spam and fake accounts start to exist then this could negatively affect LinkedIn which would also cause unhappiness among the shareholders.

Future Prospective Employees: In the state that LinkedIn is in the future prospective employees might be unhappy because of how difficult it is to find jobs using the platform. Also, they must avoid any fake accounts and make sure they do not leak their information. Once things are resolved they will become a lot happier.

    It is evident that LinkedIn’s actions were ethical in a utilitarian view. Many of the stakeholders are either happy at the moment or will be happy once everything is finally dealt with. Fake profiles are an apparent thing on most applications and websites of this nature. The way that LinkedIn is currently dealing with it shows promise of not letting this happen again and how they really follow all their policies and want to guarantee safety and real people on their platform.

Kantianism

Kant’s ethical theory is based on his conceptions of human worth. Kant believes that everyone has the right and his own decision to make not just himself happy, but others feel the same way as well. When we apply Kant’s ethical theory to the LinkedIn fake profiles, Kant’s theory will go against this because Kant thinks that when you decide what to do, you should act in a way that your audience can accept your decision and agree with you. Treat others as you want yourself to be treated by others. In Kantianism, when you never want to hurt yourself, your decision can also be not based on principles that can hurt others. If others accept your will, you are good in the eyes of Kant. Kantians will see that fake profile creators have been raised to long for the short-term rewards of response on their posts, but not to show the truth and reality to others from their own will, but to get others' likes and become famous in the eyes of others. When you lie on social media by either creating fake profiles or giving wrong information, lying is wrong whatever reason you have for the lie in Kant’s point of view. Trusting your communication and building relationships are supported by Kant.

When LinkedIn officers provided many statements to prove themselves correct that their company has many policies against the users who break their policies, but the policies are not implemented practically. They have breakage in their system that they hide from social media, so their consumers are not reduced because thousands of professionals have premium memberships that they pay monthly fees. LinkedIn did not help the public detect the scammers, but to keep their profits growing. “There are still ways by which you can reduce the magnitude of the risk” (Kumari). Identification of the thefts on any social media platform is very crucial as people have their personal information uploaded on those platforms. Security for any platform is very necessary to keep the audience engaged and trustworthy. Many of the videos can be watched on other platforms to keep yourself protected from those fake profile creators and scammers.

There are many social media platforms that have complaints about the creation of fake profiles and giving false information to users. When the right actions and the right people are hired to detect the scammers, the illegal actions can be reduced. When you will not give your personal information to anyone regardless of the social media platform, a number of cases of spam can be detected. LinkedIn has to implement its policies on its largest professionally growing platform to help consumers safely contact and remain engaged with their employees or digital community. Kantians do not act inconsistently in their own actions, so based on the formula of humanity, Kantians will respect others as they respect themselves. When Kantian will look at the fake LinkedIn profile accounts, he will complain to the officials because he does not want others to be scammed as it is the formula of humanity in the eyes of Kantians.

Virtue Theory

Virtue Theory essentially can be determined based on whether it works or not. For example, do fake profiles work in what needs to be accomplished? You would have different answers depending on which side of the situation you are on. The people who are being contacted by the false profiles would say that it does not work, while the other side, the people who are hiring the fake profile bots, would say they are successful in obtaining the requested information. Virtue theory is limited based on our perspective on what the purpose is. Virtue theory comes down to 4 virtues of character: courage, temperance, justice/fairness, and honesty. The virtue of courage means that a person is ok with taking a risk and is willing to take a stand for the right ideas and actions. For example, if employees of the companies that were using these false profiles knew about them and their shady practices, in order to be considered courageous, they would be the ones who would take a stand for the company to stop using them. The next virtue of character is honesty, an honest person is someone that is truthful to others. “The virtue of honesty certainly does have instrumental value, since others will trust an honest businessperson and be more likely to do business with him”(Wittmer and O’Brien) For example, if a company wants to be considered honest and want to gain trust with their consumers, they would not be using false LinkedIn profiles to lure in potential customers. The next theory of character in business is justice or fairness, which means that individuals should be treated the same unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation. For example, LinkedIn users should not have to try and differentiate real people from AI, while the blame can be put on the companies that are using the false profiles to obtain personal information, as it is not fair to the consumer to have their data being collected without their knowledge. The final virtue is temperance, temperance essentially means to do things in moderation, for example, if the company that is hiring these false profiles uses them to collect thousands of people’s data, this is not showing temperance, as they are overusing the services that are unethical in the first place. If a business wants to be considered virtuous, it must be willing to have all 4 of these characteristics. The virtue of character that is most in question in this article is honesty. Are companies that use this method of an advertisement being honest with their consumers? A company that has to lie to potential consumers to get their data is obviously doing something wrong, whether they are lying for the potential benefit of the consumer does not matter as being honest to the consumer is a large part of operating an ethical and virtuous business.

LinkedIn User: As a LinkedIn user, you expect to use the website for authentic business connections, and when a fraudulent account connects with you and takes your information, this is not what you intended to happen. This is considered a vice, a vice is something that is lacking virtue, and having your information taken for an unknown purpose is not what the consumers intended. If consumers wanted to give their information to these companies, they would not be using LinkedIn, especially if they knew they were being misled. Honesty is one of the main components of virtue, and when we are being tricked into believing that the other person is real, how could we ever choose to trust the business?

Fake Profile Purchaser: As someone that wants to increase their marketing, a fake profile would seem like the way to go. You could reach a certain area of people by searching what job they currently have and using fake profiles to get information like their names, phone numbers, and emails. You could then use this data collected to further market your product. From this side of the Virtue Theory, you could almost argue that it is acceptable, being that it satisfies your goals. The main goal of the false profiles is to collect data, so you are able to market your product to people of a certain demographic. But it is not virtuous, as you are conflicting with one of the main virtues of character, honesty. Being dishonest with your consumer base is not how you want to attract them to your company, as they will have reservations about your intentions from the start.

Overall, Virtue Theory would assess the use of false identities as morally impermissible, as it goes against one of the main virtues of character, honesty. If companies were to hire real people with real names and real jobs to promote their product, that would be considered permissible, but until then they should stop hiring these artificially created people to try and promote their product. The workers of the companies that are using these false profiles need to be more courageous and speak up and take a stand against their companies for using artificial intelligence, as this is considered morally impermissible. The companies also need to be more temperate, and not be greedy with their data collection. These AI can collect thousands of users’ data very efficiently, but they are not doing this in moderation, they are trying to get as much data from consumers as possible, while the morally correct way would be not using fake people and collecting the data a normal way through ethical resources. Finally, this is not justifiable or fair to the consumer, as these companies are misleading their potential customers from the very first point of contact, their consumers are being led on and not being given the facts. If the business that uses these false profiles were to work on these 4 virtues of character in business, they would be considered morally permissible, but until they change what they are doing, using false profiles will continue to be morally impermissible and should be stopped by both LinkedIn and the companies that are using the software.

Action Plan
The current issue at stake that LinkedIn is dealing with is that many fake profiles are being used on their platform which violates their terms of service and can potentially affect the current users. There have always been some fake profiles but recently they have gotten a lot harder to notice if a user did not know what to look for and a lot more have arisen. Many users have noticed that these fake profiles use profile pictures that are generated by a computer software program called Generative Adversarial Network (GAN). Not only do these fake profiles violate LinkedIn’s terms but in some cases also steal users’ information. To resolve this current issue LinkedIn should keep track of every account to check and balance the movements of users. When people search for other users, LinkedIn should know why the users are searching for them. Many users with fake profiles send others offers to steal their personal information for any reason. Some ways that LinkedIn as a company can remain profitable is through the implementation of such strict policies for all users, the creation of new softwares, and hiring people with high cyber security skills will diminish the fake profile of users. If LinkedIn is able to rid its website of all fake profiles, it will appeal safer and become a better overall platform. All users should provide their identification cards to verify their identity when creating a new account on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is committed to trying to keep its social networking platform safe and accessible to all users.
Pictured: U.S. security agencies issue advisory on Russian cyberattacks on infrastructure.

Authors

Evan Langille

Connor Crump

Shazal Zaheer

Timothy Restall

References

Bond, S. (2022, March 27). That smiling linkedin profile face might be a computer-generated fake. NPR. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www.npr.org/2022/03/27/1088140809/fake-linkedin-profiles

Lusina, A. (2022, March 29). Researchers say linkedin is overrun with fake, ai-generated profiles. PetaPixel. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://petapixel.com/2022/03/29/researchers-discover-more-than-1000-ai-generated-linkedin-profiles/

Goodman, Melanie. “How to Spot Fake Profiles on Linkedin.” LinkedIn, LinkedIn, 5 July 2021,

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-spot-fake-profiles-linkedin-melanie-goodman/

Slater-Robins, M. (2022, March 28). LinkedIn has a problem with fake profiles. TechRadar. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://www.techradar.com/news/linkedin-has-a-problem-with-fake-profiles

Salazar, H. Individualism and Business Ethics. N.d.

Salazar, H. Utilitarianism and Business Ethics. N.d.

Kumari, R. (2020, April 10). LinkedIn has fake profile problem AND So do you. LinkedIn’s Mission Statement. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/linkedin-has-fake-profile-problem-so-do-you-rakhi-kumari/

Wittmer, Dennis & O’Brien, Kevin (2014). The Virtue of “Virtue Ethics” in Business and Business Education. Journal of Business Ethics Education 11:261-278.

ESSCA, https://ethique-des-affaires.essca.fr/en/the-role-of-the-virtue-of-temperance-in-business-ethics

Sunday, November 25, 2018

Leslie Moonves: CEO's and Sex Scandals (2018)

CONTROVERSY
CBS was founded by Arthur Judson in 1927. Unable to find work, Judson created his own network which combined with another to finally be signed on as the Columbia Broadcasting System in 1929, after being bought out by William S. Paley. Programming was free to the large audiences and by 1970 they were airing infamous shows such as M*A*S*H, 60 Minutes and All in the Family. The company developed itself to gain the interests of all generations of the country.

 
CBS Company Logo
The company has developed immensely as a result of their hard work and dedication that led them to a growth in various forms of entertainment. They offer viewers a choice of CBS media in Publishing, Local Media, Cable TV, TV Network, and internet based businesses. CBS is one of the largest mass media companies in America. They have continued their growth in the new generation, as well as in older generations, with their consistent development of TV shows aiming to all audiences. Until recently, there were not a lot of complaints of the values and intentions of the company, and then came Leslie Moonves.  


Leslie Moonves, Former CEO of CBS 
Over the past few decades rumors of sexual misconduct were presented to the staff at CBS, but many were without reliable support to back them up. A New Yorker story, written by Ronan Farrow, attacks Moonves with the claims that he “forced oral sex, exposed himself, committed violent acts." Many people knew of the allegations against Moonves, but they were deemed inadmissible due to the fact that they had fallen out of the statute of limitations. Moonves is finally under review by the company as they decide whether he will receive a settlement for his step down. As of now, he is looking to receive at least 100 million dollars, or nothing at all. This decision, made by the company, could change the way people view CBS. This is not in consideration of the many women affected by Moonves’ decision, or in the company’s best interest. Moonves acknowledged his past actions, and now more women have come forward to bring his true character into light. If he had done it in the past, it is possible he is still doing it today. The position Moonves held gave him an advantage over aspiring women in the work force. He also did not see a reason to hide from the publicity. 


INDIVIDUALISM
Individualists would view CBS as unethical. An individualist’s perspective states that business should maximize profits for a company, but do so within the law. The publicity of the Leslie Moonves scandal created a poor image of the company, and the way the company handled the allegations created potential long term damage of viewers. The actions of the company to not fire Moonves, but rather let him resign from his position, created criticism from Americans. This is considered ethically
News Clip of the Resignation of Moonves
wrong from an individualist perspective because in doing this the company lost profit. Viewers are boycotting CBS for their negligence to the stakeholder, and they will continue to lose money as viewer rates decrease. Moonves went against the code of conduct of the business when he used his position to negotiate sexual favors from women. He abused his power and caused the company to lose profits as a result of his actions. The main values of an individualist’s perspective is to maximize the profits for the owners. In the case of Moonves, individualist would say it is ethically wrong because it not only goes against the company’s code of conduct, but it also caused a loss for the owners of the company. 


UTILITARIANISM
A Utilitarian perspective would also evaluate the Moonves case as ethically wrong. A utilitarian belief states that business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all
CBS Newscasters Discussing the Moonves Settlement
scandals. The consequences of the Moonves case are causing the Stakeholders pain, they are not happy. 
CBS as a company is not following the utilitarian code due to the fact that they are considering giving Moonves a settlement. This decision, if it is agreed to, will make the stakeholders feel as if they lost, and Moonves will get paid out by the company. When coming to a decision on giving Moonves a settlement, the company should follow the utilitarian perspective. They will need to consider the risks to the stakeholders; They will be humiliated if the company decides to grant Moonves a settlement, on top of the pain they are already feeling as a result of the actions of Moonves. 

KANTIANISM
A Kantian theorist would be concerned with the process CBS took in handling the case of Moonves. They would look into the way the company took action in their own hands, and made a statement declaring their full corporation with the investigation. It is considering the actions of the company, and if they are using rational decision making in the process. The company did not cause the victims harm, it was an individual in the company that did this. When the case became public, CBS tried to do everything in their power to inform viewers that they would corporate, and they also did not lie to protect their employee. They were acting with honesty and acknowledgment of the allegations. This case also passes the Categorical Imperative test of the Formulation of Humanity. This test states that it is wrong to use someone to get what you want; CBS did not use anyone as a mere means, and therefore, it is morally acceptable. CBS was acting ethical under Kantianism because they spoke out and informed their viewers of the any information, and their stance on the case. 

VIRTUE THEORY
There are four main virtues that are followed under virtue theory: Honesty, temperance, courage and justice. The company was being honest with the corporation when discussing the case through the media. They showed temperance with their control to handle the allegations with no blame to the victims. They showed courage as they continued to air their program, and not let the loss of viewers scare them. Finally, the company is showing justice as they are not putting the blame on one individual or another. They are keeping everything fair until it is all settled. 

CBS did not violate any virtues necessary to judge one’s character. They aimed to comfort the public with their response of the issue and their cooperation with the scandal. They did not lie to the public, and they acted in good character when they gave their response with honesty. They are trying to regain the trust of their viewers and they continue to show that they are aiming to act ethical under virtue theory. 


These facts and analyses are based on an original research paper by Emily Sajdak, "Leslie Moonves: CEO's and Sex Scandals" 


WORKS CITED


About CBS Corporation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cbscorporation.com/about-cbs/

Farrow, R. (2018, September 10). Leslie Moonves Steps Down from CBS, After Six Women Raise New Assault and Harassment Claims. Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/as-leslie-moonves-negotiates-his-exit-from-cbs-women-raise-new-assault-and-harassment-claims

Folkenflik, D. (2018, July 28). Report Details Sexual Harassment Allegations Against CBS CEO Les Moonves. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/2018/07/28/633376943/report-details-sexual-harassment-allegations-against-cbs-ceo-les-moonves

Hagey, K., & Flint, J. (2018, September 11). CBS's Handling of Les Moonves Accusations Hampered by Battle for Control. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/cbss-handling-of-les-moonves-accusations-hampered-by-battle-for-control-1536624692

Introduction – CBS Corporation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cbscorporation.com/diversity/about-us/introduction/

Keveney, B. (2018, September 10). CBS CEO Les Moonves becomes most powerful media exec to resign in wake of #MeToo. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/09/09/cbs-ceo-leslie-moonves-hit-new-sexual-misconduct-allegations/1249724002/

McDermott, M. (2018, October 02). Illeana Douglas: Les Moonves called my sexual assault 'a lot of fun'. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2018/10/02/illeana-douglas-les-moonves-called-my-assault-lot-fun/1498309002/

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

Saturday, April 7, 2018

Draftkings: Insider Trading (2015)

Draftkings: Insider Trading (2015)



Controversy: Draftkings is one of the leading daily fantasy sports companies within the daily fantasy sports industry. For those unfamiliar with Draftkings, users bet their money and assemble lineups using real life professional athletes who they think will accumulate the most fantasy points on that given day.  In doing so, users are playing against hundreds, sometimes thousands of other people who are also trying to make winning lineups.  Depending on the size of the contest and the buy-in amount, payout structures will vary.  All users are hoping to take home the grand prize, which has been as high as two million dollars in the past.  

The controversy came to life when an employee at Draftkings, Ethan Haskell, accidentally released data via social media before the week three NFL games had begun.  The data he released showed which players were being picked the most by people playing in Draftking's most popular NFL contest, the Millionaire Maker.  The reason this was so significant is because people who have access to ownership levels on various players gain an immediate edge over the rest of the playing field. The data allows the user to see "where the market is at".  What I mean by this is that the user can see which athletes most of the people in the contest they are playing against are gravitating towards.  From this, the user can then differentiate themselves from the rest of those competing in the contest.  Being able to differentiate yourself and pick undervalued athletes gives you the best chance at taking home the grand prize because not many others competing in the contest will have the athletes you selected.  Haskell released a statement saying that he was the only person who had access to the information and that he could not use it to his advantage on Draftkings because Draftkings does not allow its employees to compete on their own site. 

If you thought the inadvertent release of the ownership levels was bad enough, the same Draftkings employee went on to win $350,000 on Draftking's rival daily fantasy sports site Fanduel, that same week.  This immediately raised questions of insider trading within Draftkings, as well as the daily fantasy sports industry itself.  As stated above, Draftkings does not allow its employees to compete on their own site.  However, they do not forbid their employees from playing on other daily fantasy sports websites such as Fanduel. People began to question whether the data he obtained through his company allowed him to make a winning lineup on Fanduel.  If true, he had an unfair advantage over the rest of the contest participants because he had access to information that they didn't.  Insider trading typically occurs in the stock market, when someone trades securities utilizing information that is confidential and non-public.  Many outraged daily fantasy sports players claimed that the actions by Ethan Haskell would fall under the realm of insider trading. Both Draftkings and Fanduel released a joint statement, stating that "nothing is more important than the integrity of the games we offer." The statement also said "Both companies have strong policies in place to ensure that employees do not misuse any information at their disposal and strictly limit access to company data to only those employees who require it to do their jobs.  Employees with access to this data are 
rigorously monitored by internal fraud control teams, and we have no evidence that anyone has misused it."  Regardless of this statement by Draftkings and Fanduel, many people still stick to their claims of insider trading and call for more oversight and regulation into the business actions of these companies.  Many people, like myself, believe it is unethical for employees who have access to non-public information to be able to compete in daily fantasy sports contests.   However, according to the statement made, Draftkings was comfortable with saying that no wrong doing was found. It wasn't until late in 2016 that Draftkings banned their employees from playing on rival daily fantasy sports sites.

Stakeholders:  Stakeholders are defined as those who are affected by the actions of a business.  In this case the stakeholders are anyone who has ever played on Draftkings, along with any other daily fantasy sports site as well.  In addition, I would also consider the employees of Draftkings and of all other daily fantasy sports companies stakeholders as well.  This one controversy within Draftkings has an affect on the entire industry, as people may view this form of sports gambling as rigged and unfair.  

Individualism: Individualism, a theory coined by Milton Friedman, states that business actions should maximize profits for the owners of a business, but do so within the law.  When looking at this situation from an Individualistic perspective, one could say that this controversy not only hurt Draftkings financially, but the whole industry as well.  Many users may have been deterred from playing these sites after the potential insider trading claims arose after Ethan Haskell, the Draftkings employee, won such a large sum of money.  The loss of users immediately decreases profits instead of maximizing them.  In addition, although no legal action was taken, many can argue that this controversy could fall under the realm of insider trading, which is not within the law.  Public opinion of Draftkings before this controversy was mostly positive.  The only negative thing some people said about Draftkings was that it should be considered an illegal form of gambling.  Other than that, people believed that the playing field was fair.  However, after this controversy occurred, many users have since changed their minds. Something Draftkings should have done immediately to help combat the loss of profits was to ban their employees from playing on other sites.  However, they waited almost a year to do so. 

Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that says business actions should aim to maximize the happiness in the long run for all conscious beings that are affected by the business actions.  When looking at the controversy from this perspective, a Utilitarian would say that the actions of this employee, and Draftkings itself, were unethical and resulted in the complete opposite of the Utilitarian values.  Majority of stakeholders did not receive happiness from these actions, but rather outrage and loss of trust towards Draftkings.  The only person who made out in this situation is Ethan Haskell, as he became $350,000 richer.  The benefits of him winning does not outweigh the costs that Draftkings now faces after this controversy.  

Kantianism: This theory was formed by a man named Immanuel Kant.  The ethical rules for Kantianism are to always act in ways that respect and honor individuals and their choices.  It is wrong to manipulate, exploit, lie, cheat, or use people to their own advantage.  A Kantian can analyze this controversy and say that the ethical rules were broken in this situation.  On the outside Draftkings has advertised a fair playing field for all users, but this situation raises questions about the legitimacy of that claim.  If employees within Draftkings have access to information that would give them an edge over those who don't, that is pretty much going against all of the things listed above.  Users were being taken advantage of without them even knowing about it until this controversy made its way into the public eye.  In order for Draftkings to conform to Kant's rules, there needs to be some more regulation and oversight done within the company.  Banning employees from playing on rival sites was definitely a step in the right direction.

Virtue Theory: The Virtue theory was originally developed by Aristotle, however as time has gone on many other versions have been created along the way.  The Virtue theory states that you are to act in a way that embodies a variety of virtuous or good character traits and to avoid vicious and bad character traits.  Some virtuous traits are courage, honesty, temperance, and justice.  In order for a company to follow this theory, they must comply with all four components.  Two components Draftkings does not comply with are honesty and justice.  Ever since Draftkings started up, they have advertised a fair playing field for all users of their site.  However, amid insider trading claims, we now know that for a time period Draftking employees had access to information that helped them win money over those who didn't have access. Honesty is thrown out the window, as users did not know this was going on until it became public.  Justice is also not met, as the Draftkings employee had an unfair advantage. In order for Draftkings to meet these two components they would need much more oversight, particularly from a third party who can monitor their business actions closely. 

References: 

Bieler, Des. “Insider-Trading Scandal Rocks Daily Fantasy Sports Industry.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Oct. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/10/05/insider-trading-scandal-rocks-daily-fantasy-sports-industry/?utm_term=.038efd4b4c9b.

Brown, Larry. “Ethan Haskell: Draft Kings Employee Won $350,000 on FanDuel.” Larry Brown Sports, 6 Oct. 2015, larrybrownsports.com/fantasy/ethan-haskell-draft-kings-fanduel-profile/276741.

Culhane, John. “Why the Insider Trading Scandals Could Bring Down DraftKings and FanDuel.” Slate Magazine, 13 Oct. 2015, www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/10/the_insider_trading_scandals_could_bring_down_draftkings_and_fanduel.html.

Drape, Joe, and Jacqueline Williams. “Scandal Erupts in Unregulated World of Fantasy Sports.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Oct. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/sports/fanduel-draftkings-fantasy-employees-bet-rivals.html.

Kim, Susanna. “FanDuel, DraftKings 'Insider Trading' Allegations: An Explainer.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 6 Oct. 2015, abcnews.go.com/Business/fanduel-draftkings-insider-trading-allegations-explainer/story?id=34286629.

Williams, Trey. “DraftKings, FanDuel under Scrutiny Following Insider-Trading Allegations.” MarketWatch, 6 Oct. 2015, www.marketwatch.com/story/draftkings-fanduel-under-scrutiny-following-insider-trading-allegations-2015-10-06.


Bieler, Des. “Insider-Trading Scandal Rocks Daily Fantasy Sports Industry.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Oct. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/10/05/insider-trading-scandal-rocks-daily-fantasy-sports-industry/?utm_term=.038efd4b4c9b.
Brown, Larry. “Ethan Haskell: Draft Kings Employee Won $350,000 on FanDuel.” Larry Brown Sports, 6 Oct. 2015, larrybrownsports.com/fantasy/ethan-haskell-draft-kings-fanduel-profile/276741.
Culhane, John. “Why the Insider Trading Scandals Could Bring Down DraftKings and FanDuel.” Slate Magazine, 13 Oct. 2015, www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/10/the_insider_trading_scandals_could_bring_down_draftkings_and_fanduel.html.
Drape, Joe, and Jacqueline Williams. “Scandal Erupts in Unregulated World of Fantasy Sports.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Oct. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/sports/fanduel-draftkings-fantasy-employees-bet-rivals.html.
Kim, Susanna. “FanDuel, DraftKings 'Insider Trading' Allegations: An Explainer.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 6 Oct. 2015, abcnews.go.com/Business/fanduel-draftkings-insider-trading-allegations-explainer/story?id=34286629.
Williams, Trey. “DraftKings, FanDuel under Scrutiny Following Insider-Trading Allegations.” MarketWatch, 6 Oct. 2015, www.marketwatch.com/story/draftkings-fanduel-under-scrutiny-following-insider-trading-allegations-2015-10-06.
Bieler, Des. “Insider-Trading Scandal Rocks Daily Fantasy Sports Industry.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Oct. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/10/05/insider-trading-scandal-rocks-daily-fantasy-sports-industry/?utm_term=.038efd4b4c9b.
Brown, Larry. “Ethan Haskell: Draft Kings Employee Won $350,000 on FanDuel.” Larry Brown Sports, 6 Oct. 2015, larrybrownsports.com/fantasy/ethan-haskell-draft-kings-fanduel-profile/276741.
Culhane, John. “Why the Insider Trading Scandals Could Bring Down DraftKings and FanDuel.” Slate Magazine, 13 Oct. 2015, www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/10/the_insider_trading_scandals_could_bring_down_draftkings_and_fanduel.html.
Drape, Joe, and Jacqueline Williams. “Scandal Erupts in Unregulated World of Fantasy Sports.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Oct. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/sports/fanduel-draftkings-fantasy-employees-bet-rivals.html.
Kim, Susanna. “FanDuel, DraftKings 'Insider Trading' Allegations: An Explainer.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 6 Oct. 2015, abcnews.go.com/Business/fanduel-draftkings-insider-trading-allegations-explainer/story?id=34286629.
Williams, Trey. “DraftKings, FanDuel under Scrutiny Following Insider-Trading Allegations.” MarketWatch, 6 Oct. 2015, www.marketwatch.com/story/draftkings-fanduel-under-scrutiny-following-insider-trading-allegations-2015-10-06.
Bieler, Des. “Insider-Trading Scandal Rocks Daily Fantasy Sports Industry.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 5 Oct. 2015, www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/10/05/insider-trading-scandal-rocks-daily-fantasy-sports-industry/?utm_term=.038efd4b4c9b.
Brown, Larry. “Ethan Haskell: Draft Kings Employee Won $350,000 on FanDuel.” Larry Brown Sports, 6 Oct. 2015, larrybrownsports.com/fantasy/ethan-haskell-draft-kings-fanduel-profile/276741.
Culhane, John. “Why the Insider Trading Scandals Could Bring Down DraftKings and FanDuel.” Slate Magazine, 13 Oct. 2015, www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/10/the_insider_trading_scandals_could_bring_down_draftkings_and_fanduel.html.
Drape, Joe, and Jacqueline Williams. “Scandal Erupts in Unregulated World of Fantasy Sports.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 5 Oct. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/sports/fanduel-draftkings-fantasy-employees-bet-rivals.html.
Kim, Susanna. “FanDuel, DraftKings 'Insider Trading' Allegations: An Explainer.” ABC News, ABC News Network, 6 Oct. 2015, abcnews.go.com/Business/fanduel-draftkings-insider-trading-allegations-explainer/story?id=34286629.
Williams, Trey. “DraftKings, FanDuel under Scrutiny Following Insider-Trading Allegations.” MarketWatch, 6 Oct. 2015, www.marketwatch.com/story/draftkings-fanduel-under-scrutiny-following-insider-trading-allegations-2015-10-06.