Tailor Made Compounding: Fraudulent Drug Claims (2020)

Tailor Made Compounding is a company who has always worked in categories like anti-aging, sleep solutions, and aesthetic dermatology - until recently. With the hysteria of COVID-19 providing an opportunity for pharmaceutical companies to profit significantly from any progression in vaccines or treatments, Tailor Made Compounding seized the opportunity. However, the way they took advantage of this opportunity was nowhere near ethical. For one, their research and compounding never had to do with infectious diseases and for them to take something on like this was well beyond their reach. They made claims that their compounding was a safe and FDA approved treatment for COVID-19 when the FDA had never approved their treatment and it was never proved to actually have any success in treating the virus. Many laws protect the general public from money-hungry companies like this but it took some time and probing from the subcommittee of Economic and Consumer Policy and outrage across the country for there to be an official investigation done by the FDA and FBI. As a result of this investigation, CEO of Tailor Made Jeremy Delk was sentenced to 10 years and the company was required to pay a maximum fine of $250,000. Because of Tailor Made’s actions many people went about their lives thinking they were immune to COVID-19 when in fact they could have been the most dangerous people to be in contact with since they were likely taking significantly less precautions to stay safe and/or stop the spread of the virus. 

COVID-19

                                                                              

When it comes to ethical theories, the theory of Individualism argues that any company/person should be able to maximize their profits as much as they want as long as it is within the bound of the law. Because making claims that the FDA had approved of the treatment and making unsupported claims about the drug in general are highly illegal, an Individualist would be against Tailor Made Compounding and would agree with punishing the company. A Utilitarian perspective aims for maximum amounts of happiness for everyone. Because these people are having to pay significant amounts of money for something that is not actually working or keeping them safe, it does not make them happy and their amounts of unhappiness significantly outweigh the few people at the top of Tailor Compounding who are profiting. A Kantian theorist would say that everyone should be treated as ends in themselves and not just means to an end. Because Tailor Made Compounding lied and manipulated these people to profit off of them, a Kantian would think Tailor Made was acting unethically. And finally from an analysis of the vices and virtues of the company - Tailor Made Compounding exhibited vices such as greed and dishonesty and lacked in critical values such as compassion and caring. In moving forward, the company will have to do some heavy damage control including an outright apology to the public for their misleading treatment advertising and should make sure to hire someone at the top of the company that has strong values of anti-corruption and anti-corporate greed. 

The Case:

As the coronavirus continues to spread across the United States it endangers the lives of millions. Alongside that the paranoia and fear of catching it is on the minds of most Americans as they proceed in their daily lives as cautiously as possible. It is not a surprise that the people of America are extremely susceptible to the tricks and follies that are bound to be pulled by unethical companies that are attempting to profit off of the uncertainty of the virus. Web of Wellness Doctors leaped at this opportunity, Tailor Made Compounding being one of, “30 medical practices and compounding pharmacies across more than a dozen states that have made unproven claims about this drug on their websites and on social media.” (Dreisbach) The cost of these drugs can run up and around $400 for only a month’s supply - all of which comes completely out of pocket. While representatives from VitaLifeMD have made claims regarding potential treatments, Tailor Made has made far more explicit claims for thymosin alpha-1 as a COVID-19 treatment. In early March a company leader from Tailor Made, Ryan Smith, created a presentation where, “He told a group of health care providers that Tailor Made Compounding had several drugs that they could "sort of market to your patients" during the pandemic [and] repeated the falsehood that thymosin alpha-1 is "FDA approved," and he recommended the drug to his audience as a treatment for Lyme disease, "general anti-aging," as well as the coronavirus.” (Dreisbach) Tailor Made Compounding took advantage of the citizens of the United States of America who are fearing for their lives in the midst of a global pandemic. Tailor Made lied to their clients and endangered their lives by giving them a false sense of security. 

In a letter from the subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy, they inquire about the efforts being made by the FDA and the FTC in regards to the sale, distribution, and prescription of the drug thymosin alpha-1 for treating COVID-19. They explain that the efforts done so far, just warning companies that their actions are unlawful, is not enough. It explains that these companies aren’t even experts in infectious diseases, instead they often deal with benign treatments such as plastic surgery or even anti-aging medicine. Creating a cure to a pandemic that is crippling nations all across the world, does not really seem like it is in their alley of expertise. On June 30th these warnings went out to companies but this subcommittee argues that is not enough. There are many dangers in permitting companies to proceed in offering thymosin alpha-1 to people as a treatment for COVID including: “People who take them and assume they are protected risk infecting others. Beyond that, scam sales of this product present significant economic harm to consumers.” (House Committee) So clearly not only is this an obvious abuse of power to charge people exorbitant amounts of money for something that is not even FDA approved, it also makes people feel like they are immune to COVID which can cause people to not be as cautious as they should be. Specifically, Tailor Made received a warning from the FDA for unsafe production processes on April 1, 2020. However, warning letters carry no penalty and there is nothing being done to actually stop these companies from carrying on these dangerous practices. The Subcommittee ends the letter demanding that the FDA and FTC enforce existing laws to eliminate the sale, distribution, and prescription of the drug thymosin alpha-1 for treating COVID-19 and to open an investigation into this malpractice. 

Fortunately for the people of the world, Tailor Made Compounding faced the scales of justice and lost. On October 29th, “Tailor Made Compounding LLC (TMC) pleaded guilty to one count of distributing unapproved new drugs throughout the United States, from October 25, 2018 through April 1, 2020, before the U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove.  Specifically, TMC pleaded guilty to unlawful distribution of selective androgen receptor modulators (“SARMS”) and other substances that the FDA had not approved for distribution in the United States.” (“Nicholasville Compounding…”) Clearly after the investigation and demands put forth by the Subcommittee of Economic and Consumer Policy, serious action was taken and Tailor Made Compounding faced their consequences. The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky is quoted explaining that it is of paramount importance to make sure that companies follow all FDA requirements. He writes that, “When pharmacies intentionally evade the FDA requirements, they are placing their own interests above those of the patients they are supposed to be serving.  The community deserves better, and I commend the work of our law enforcement partners in their diligent efforts to protect the public and disrupt this criminal conduct.” (“Nicholasville Compounding…”) He then goes on to explain that while compounding drugs are important to fulfill the needs of patients for whom normal drugs don’t work, it is still important to make sure that these drugs are fitting the important criteria necessary to ensure the safety of those that are consuming the drugs and are not taking advantage of people who are entrusting these companies literally with their lives. Delk faces up to 10 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 for his actions in allowing Tailor Made to continue as they were. One can hope that this case and the punishments received from the unlawful actions, will set an example for those who are thinking of following down the same path and will discourage them from endangering the public in this way.

These false claims also endanger the consumers in another very real way. In an article by the FDA they  express a lot of concern regarding how these fraudulent claims are actually affecting the safety of people, “The FDA is particularly concerned that these deceptive and misleading products might cause Americans to delay or stop appropriate medical treatment, leading to serious and life-threatening harm. It’s likely that the products do not do what they claim, and the ingredients in them could cause adverse effects and could interact with, and potentially interfere with, essential medications.” (Commissioner) So not only are these fraudulent claims taking advantage of a consumer through profiting off of something that it doesn’t actually do, these medications could really hurt the people they are giving them to through reactions to the medication. 

There has been progress since these fraudulent claims in finding a treatment for COVID-19 that is actually FDA approved. Bamlanivimab was approved by the FDA through an issuance of an emergency use authorization which skips some of the stringent time requirements usually necessary for certain drugs approvals. They detail that they recognize that they think it is worth using these treatments without knowing all the side effects and long term effects since they are using it on people who will likely die without any treatment at all. Dr. Prince writes, “they also have to fall into a category of risk that’s been identified as placing them at a higher risk for hospitalization and bad outcomes like death.” (Briar) The interesting part of this which definitely makes it more ethical and differentiates these practices from those of Tailor Made Compounding is that they are not charging the patients for the medication - so it is all free. Selection of patients is done after a review of patients symptoms and circumstances, much unlike Tailor Made who just sold it to whoever could afford the steep prices.

Bamlanivimab

Stakeholders:

The stakeholders in this case are the Tailor Made executives, the CEO of Tailor Made - Jeremy Delk, the American public, shareholders, and Tailor Made employees. The two most important ones that are truly emphasized in this case and in its ethical analysis are Jeremy Delk and the American Public. Jeremy Delk held a large stake in this because he stood to gain a lot of money from his actions. The American Public had a lot to gain in the sense of safety but in reality lost a lot in this situation by being lied to. 

Individualism:

When it comes to being the devil’s advocate, an Individualist would likely play the best actor in that role. They argue that individuals and companies are well within their rights to act as they please and maximize their profits to any extent as long as it is within the bounds of the law. In other words, things may seem morally wrong but as long as the actions aren’t breaking any laws then an Individualist would say it is totally okay for them to be doing the immoral action. This one looks at situations in black and white and there really isn’t a gray area like there is in other ethical theories. Either the actions are legal or they aren’t and that determines the verdict of whether it is okay or not. So it is very telling to know that an individualist would argue that Tailor Made Compounding’s actions were unethical. Lying about FDA approval is a federal crime. There are many laws that regulate the selling of drugs and TMC broke several of these laws which makes them unethical according to an individualist.

Utilitarianism:

A Utilitarian on the other hand gets a little more complicated in the sense that there are more factors and people to consider when analyzing whether a situation is ethical or not. From a Utilitarian perspective, they seek to maximize happiness as much as possible. So even though one person might be happy that is not enough if there are 20 other people who are very unhappy. Therefore in this instance, a utilitarian would argue that Tailor Made Compounding was acting unethically. This is because though Jeremy Delk and his executive board would profit significantly from the sale of this alleged COVID treatment/drug, the unhappiness of their customers and the American public as a whole would greatly outweigh their happiness. If someone has to pay $400 for a drug that doesn’t even work, they would immediately be extremely unhappy for wasting their money. On the next level, this lie that it works puts them in great danger since they start to assume they are immune and not taking the precautions that they should be to keep safe. This can lead to their own death, death of loved ones, and death to anyone they encounter. The unhappiness that comes from death most definitely outweighs the happiness of a few people at the top of Tailor Made Compounding who profit from the sales of this false COVID treatment. 

Kantianism:

A Kantian ultimately believes that everyone should be treated as ends in of themselves and should not be used as means for the ends of someone else. This means not manipulated, or lying to anyone in order to achieve a personal goal. In this sense a Kantian would also think that the actions of Tailor Made Compounding were unethical since Jeremy Delk and his company lied to people when they said that this drug treated COVID and was approved by the FDA when both claims were very wrong and unsupported. Jeremy Delk used the American public and endangered them in order to make as much money as possible. 

Virtue Theory:

The great Greek Philosopher Aristotle brought forward Virtue Theory which analyzed the characteristics of individuals rather than looking at a general situation. It considers values like courage, honesty, leadership, compassion, integrity, and more. It also considers the vices that one might hold like greed and selfishness. In these actions, Tailor Made Compounding displayed vices such as greed and selfishness and lacked key virtues such as honesty, compassion and integrity. They lied to their customers and were not honest, they were not compassionate since they first of all charged such high prices and second endangered their lives with these false claims. They were simply greedy and wanted to make as much money as possible without considering how everyone else would be affected. 

Justified Evaluation:

After looking at all of the ethical theories and research, they all come to the consensus that Tailor Made Compounding acted unethically in the selling and marketing of their drugs that they claimed could treat COVID-19. I agree with this consensus. I think it is extremely wrong of Tailor Made to take advantage of the people of the world who anxiously await good news of a vaccine or treatment so that they can stop living in fear of catching this infectious disease or even passing it along to a loved one. It is so wrong to play on the little hope that the people of the world have just to make extra money. While people are losing their jobs and homes because of this pandemic, Tailor Made Compounding made these horrible claims that they had a treatment for the virus just to make so much more money. Instead of being grateful for holding onto the income they already had, they had to take advantage of the little money and hope that Americans are left with today. What Tailor Made Compounding did was so wrong on so many levels and it is without a doubt that I say the actions they did deserve the most severe punishment possible. 

Action Plan:

At this point the only thing that Tailor Made Compounding can do is apologize for their actions and start fresh. They should immediately hold a press conference of some sort to apologize to the American people for lying to them and taking advantage of their hope. Perhaps they can justify their actions by saying they too strongly had hope for the compounding drugs and simply got ahead of themselves in the process. They could say that they truly believed they could help the American public go back to normal just as they so desperately want to. They would have to admit complete fault and recognize that they were very wrong. One thing I strongly believe they have to do is repay those individuals who bought the drugs and even pay them reparations for any harm they brought to their families or friends since they thought they were safe. If they want to remain profitable it will be important to explain that their intentions were pure and that they simply were so eager to help everyone that they got caught up and couldn’t wait for any approval. This can be done through the aforementioned recommendations. 

        Julia S. 

References:

Briar, Chelsea. “Revolutionary New COVID-19 Treatment Arrives in Madison County.” Local News 8, 13 Nov. 2020, localnews8.com/news/local-news/2020/11/13/revolutionary-new-covid-19-treatment-now-in-madison-county/.

Commissioner, Office of the. “There Are No FDA-Approved Drugs or Vaccines to Treat COVID-19.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/beware-fraudulent-coronavirus-tests-vaccines-and-treatments.

Dreisbach, Tom. “Web Of 'Wellness' Doctors Promote Injections Of Unproven Coronavirus Treatment.” NPR, NPR, 1 Oct. 2020, www.npr.org/2020/10/01/914433778/web-of-wellness-doctors-promote-injections-of-unproven-coronavirus-treatment

House Committee on Oversight and Reform, oversight.house.gov/ .https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/2020-10-28.RK%20to%20FDA%20and%20FTC%20re%20Thymosin%20Alpha-1.pdf

“Nicholasville Compounding Pharmacy and Its Owner Plead Guilty to Unlawful Distribution of Prescription Drugs.” The United States Department of Justice, 29 Oct. 2020, www.justice.gov/usao-edky/pr/nicholasville-compounding-pharmacy-and-its-owner-plead-guilty-unlawful-distribution.

Facebook: Not Taking Action (2019-2020)

Facebook Unwilling to Take Action

Abstract

    Facebook has not been acting to catch false and misleading information that they already know about that can damage the election. Mark Zuckerberg has been adamant about protecting the social media giant’s users posts and saying they are monitoring what is being posted/said most recently about the 2020 election and also the COVID-19 pandemic but has done nothing about it. Although, he has not stuck to his word and has allowed fraudulent information to be posted time and time again, Zuckerberg will continuously state that “they are doing what they can”. 

    Facebook most likely won’t face very much backlash in regards to their actions, or lack thereof, from many of their users because of the power and stature the company has. An individualist would agree with Facebook’s recent strategy and actions in regards to the censoring of posts with false information surrounding the pandemic and the election. According to Utilitarian beliefs, Facebook is playing both sides due to them turning a blind eye to fraud posts, which maximizes happiness for some, while angers another side because they do not want to see fraud all over their timeline. Kantianism would argue that Facebook does not coincide with their beliefs because they are not doing what is right because it is right. A believer in the four virtue theories (courage, honesty, self-control, and justice/fairness) would disapprove of Facebook’s actions because they do not follow any of them in regards to being “ethical”. Using each of these ethical theories as a baseline, Facebook needs to improve their entire process because they do not show any semblance of following any ethical practices.  

Ethics Case Controversy 

    Mark Zuckerberg wanted to prepare people for the 2020 United States Presidential Election by giving/placing warnings on posts. Most importantly, Zuckerberg wanted to clear misinformation about the pandemic and voting by attaching a link to each and every one of those posts. Zuckerberg and his wife donated more than $300M in order to help strengthen election security. Personally, Mark Zuckerberg did not believe that the 2020 election would be rigged and said that he would certainly apply the warning/restriction tag to the POTUS posts. "The thing that I'm very sensitive [about] is having us be the ultimate deciders of what is right and wrong and true and false in the world" (cbsnews.com). This shows how Mark Zuckerberg is going back on his word because he says that he is all about what is right and what is wrong, yet when his company does the wrong thing by selling their “customer’s” (users) information and selling it Facebook’s advertisers without consent or knowledge from the people that they are taking it from, he sheds a blind eye and sees nothing. Zuckerberg stated in an interview with Gayle king that the social media giant is going to be putting warning flags on misleading and false information on both of their major social media platforms, Facebook and Instagram. “But we're also going to be acting on content that people try to put out there, that says that it is fraudulent…” (cbsnews.com). If Zuckerberg is adamant about flagging and giving forewarning about potential fraud in relation to the pandemic and the 2020 election, then he should be doing it on everything else and not just picking and choosing what he thinks meets the criteria. 

    Cyberattacks are always a potential threat in any election, but now more than ever are they a threat due to the advancements in technology and knowledge of foreign countries, even just over a 4-year period from 2016 to 2020. November 3rd, 2020 will test the preparation over the last four years that has been instilled in order to protect us from a cyberattack. The longer the election goes on, the more likely or higher chance there is of potentially being a cyberattack with an abundance of fraud information that will be all over social media platforms. There is growing concern though that there could be potentially a repeat of what happened during the 2016 election, which was Russia interfering and creating rifts both domestically and on foreign territories (wsj.com, Uberti). Christopher Krebs, who is part of the Department of Homeland Security, stated “We remain confident that no foreign cyber actor can change your vote… But that doesn’t mean various actors won’t try to introduce chaos into our elections and make sensationalist claims that overstate their capabilities.” (wsj.com, Uberti) Facebook said that they will label content that states mail-in-voting is fraudulent and label whether a candidate declares victory before the final election results have been called. 

    As much as there is a worry of foreign cyberattacks, there is just as much of a chance that there may be domestic attacks attempting to influence the election. There is a general feeling that domestically, the misinformation being spread will have a greater impact than foreign attempts of attacks. Yoel Roth, Twitter head of site integrity, stated “In some ways, the people who know the most about how to mislead Americans are other Americans" (npr.org, Myre/Bond). This statement by Roth indicates the fear that there is going around that Americans are the more likely ones to spread the false information. For example, former Vice President (now President elect) Joe Biden called out Facebook’s decisions to not hold current President Donald Trump accountable for his posts, which does not fit into/follow Facebook’s policies. Biden stated, “By now Mr. Trump clearly understands that Facebook will not hold him to their clearly stated policies” (npr.org, Myre/Bond). Joe Biden and his campaign are clearly frustrated by the false information being spread by our very own President that is not being monitored or flagged by arguably the biggest and most notable social media platform on the market today, which is Facebook. 

    Facebook has never been an organization to mute politician’s posts or fact check them, even if they are suspect (americanprogress.org, Conner/Simpson). The election may take multiple days and up to a week to decide if it is not decided on Tuesday November 3rd. This would allow for politicians, both big and small, to potentially claim victories when the final results of the election have not been determined or confirmed yet, setting up potentially a dangerous situation. Facebook not implementing a system of checks and balances can be harmful for them, as well as impact the election and potentially skew it one way or another. 

    Each and every social media platform has stated that they will do what they can in order to remove disinformation regarding the pandemic and the 2020 election. Facebook stated that it has removed more than 7 million posts regarding the pandemic on both its main site as well as Instagram yet failed to remove a video before it was viewed 20 million times containing individuals claiming to be “doctors” saying that “you don’t need a mask to protect yourself from COVID-19” (time.com, Bergengruen). This coincides with Facebook not fact checking misinformation politician’s posts or ads with warning flags of false claims. Mark Zuckerberg defends his decision to do this because he says that users and listeners should be hearing from the candidates directly and he doesn’t want to take away their right of free speech on his platform. 

Stakeholders

Facebook itself is a major stakeholder in the situation that they have put themselves in with their handling of their user’s posts containing disinformation about the election. As a company, Facebook knows the impact it could potentially have on the election but are too worried about their own agenda to stop anyone who feels the need to post fake news on their platform. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of the social media giant, certainly has a lot on the line (mostly his reputation) as well because if the situation is not handled correctly, then he and the company itself could lose billions of dollars. Zuckerberg’s situation relates to the shareholders (individuals who own stock) of Facebook because if the company’s stock takes a significant hit as more negative information is revealed, then those individuals will lose a great deal of money as well. This reflects poorly on them for investing in a company like that and reflects negatively on Zuckerberg also for running a company like that. Lastly, the stakeholders in the situation that would be impacted the most are the daily users of Facebook because their interactions and experience on the social media platform are determined by how and what upper management of the company puts in front of them when they are on the app. 

Individualism

    The belief of individualism is the goal of maximizing profits for a specific individual, as well as maximizing profits for the stakeholders of a specific company and acting in their best interests. Facebook’s situation does relate to individualism because they only care about maximizing profits for Mark Zuckerberg and the company of Facebook itself by not totally acting in their best interests. If Facebook actually cared about something or someone other than itself, then they would have cared about the false information and lies being spread across their platform impacting people’s decision making. The company has a history of this not only in relation to the pandemic and the most recent election, but with using their customers information without them knowing and selling it to advertisers for millions and millions of dollars going into their pockets. This is not in the company’s best interests because the backlash they have faced and are facing currently put the company in a negative spotlight, which hurt the company in the long run, all because they were greedy and wanted a short-term money gain. 

Utilitarianism

    The theory of utilitarianism is the belief that an action can be perceived as ethical if it is maximizing and promoting happiness to the greatest amount of people possible. Facebook case does both agree as well as disagree with utilitarianism because it is maximizing the happiness of the people who feel the false and misleading posts are immoral and wrong to do and flagging the ones they choose to, while it also does not maximize the happiness of those believing that their right of free speech is being muted when the company does decide to flag certain posts. The side of the people that believe Facebook flagging the posts they pick and choose to are doing the right thing. Those specific individuals have their happiness maximized because they deem what Facebook is doing ethical when the company chooses to do it, which happens to be not often. The other side of this situation are the people who are having their posts, about the election and pandemic, flagged with warnings stating that there might be potentially false information in the post. These individuals feel that their freedom of speech is being muted and that the company of Facebook is not allowing them to “use their right” to post. The actions that Facebook are conducting themselves towards user’s posts can be deemed both ethical as well as unethical because happiness is being maximized on one side of the spectrum, while it is certainly at a minimum for the people feel they are being muted. 

 

Kantianism

    Facebook does not follow Kantianism because they are not doing what is right because it is right. The organization is not making decisions out of good will and only basing their choices off of their own self-interests. Facebook has repeatedly shown that they don’t care what is posted and why they only flag very few posts every now and again that they ultimately believe shouldn’t be on the platform. Instead of looking out for others and doing what is right because it is right, Facebook turned a blind eye in regards to the early stages and currently during the pandemic, as well as leading up to the 2020 Presidential Election. There were numerous accounts posting day in and day out about how the COVID-19 pandemic was not real and how we shouldn’t be listening to the government and proceed as normal with how we had been going about our lives. Facebook did not monitor any of these posts and allowed those accounts to continue actively on their platform. Another example would be the President of the United States, Donald Trump, posting numerous times about how the election was going to be rigged because of the mail-in voting and that it was going to impact his chances at winning. Up until the election there was no evidence or validity to his statements, especially in past elections where there had been mail-in voting. Mark Zuckerberg stated that his company would be flagging anyone and everyone that was spewing false information, including the President, but he didn’t and proved the unethical practices he and his company follows. If Zuckerberg wanted to act in an ethical manner he would have stuck to his word and followed through, but he didn’t and that’s why there is controversy surrounding the company now. 

Virtue Theory

    The four cardinal virtues in business ethics are as follows: temperance, justice, honesty, and courage. Facebook does not follow any of the four cardinal virtues with their actions. Temperance relates to self-control and Facebook showed no self-control in relation to monitoring the posts during a critical time, knowing what their users saw could possibly impact an election. The company also revealed no signs of serving justice to those who felt the need to spew erroneous information all over their platform and ban them from using Facebook because of their potentially harmful actions. This showed no signs of courage as well because Facebook as a whole could not deviate from their own agenda and only cared about the amount of users and clicks they were generating on their site because that generates money and that is all Facebook cares about. Zuckerberg continuously stated the company’s plan to act upon flawed information/posts in the right way, yet just was dishonest and didn’t care enough to protect the integrity of one of the most important elections in United States history or the safety of United States citizens in regards to the false posts about the pandemic. 

Justified Evaluation

    Facebook clearly is not doing right by any one of their customers because they are not giving forewarning about what is right and what is wrong in terms of the two most serious matters at the current time, the election and the pandemic. I understand that Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook want to protect their image by flagging potentially fraudulent posts about those two important topics, but it seems as if the media giant is not doing right by themselves and their customers/users because they are not living up to their word. Ethically and morally, Facebook has not always been a clean company with their actions. When they were found to have been selling and accessing their user’s information without their consent/permission, was a big controversy surrounding the company. Because Facebook is allowing its users to post whatever they want in terms of the election and the pandemic shows and reveals what kind of morals they have. Fraudulent information is being posted all over Facebook in regards to the election by foreign countries and individuals domestically in the United States as well, which certainly could have impacted the outcome if users were to believe the information being presented in front of them. 

Action Plan

The current issue with Facebook is that it is having to deal with a plethora of information regarding the coronavirus pandemic as well as the 2020 United States Presidential Election that happens to be untrue and they are not doing anything about it. This creates a division between people because there are people who are pleading for Facebook to warn and limit the false information popping up on their timeline, while the other side is saying that their right of free speech will be muted if Facebook decides to flag or remove the posts. One way that Facebook could resolve this problem is come out and be brutally honest and say, “We will try our best to remove utterly false information that does not coincide with what we deem to be correct or safe and shines a bad light on our company.” And what will really make people happy is if the company actually follows up on their statement with legitimate actions. A proper mission statement for Facebook would be, “We as a company believe in the best user experience possible and want to ensure the information posted all across our platform(s) regarding serious issues like COVID-19 and the Presidential Election are the most accurate and truthful it possibly can be.” This statement is different and an improvement from Facebook’s itself because they are being extremely vague and not laying out what their issues are, they simply are just saying they want to eliminate problems. The core values that Facebook should emphasize the most are user experience, honesty, truthfulness, and courageousness. User experience should be the company’s number one priority because of the popularity of the platform and the amount of traffic that goes on it each day. Honesty, truthfulness, and courageousness should also be valued by Facebook because being honest and truthful are important not only to their users, but their stockholders as well. If it is discovered that the company is doing something illegal behind the scenes and they were saying the complete opposite the entire time they were doing it, then that will be a major hit to the company. Although if they are honest and say they were doing wrong and took accountability, that shows courage and makes it more likely the company will rebound from their mistakes. In the future, Facebook can have discussions with employees about the proper steps to limit or eliminate false information completely from being posted and implement certain protocols during unprecedented times to make sure there is not an abundance of information that can’t be stopped from being spread. Hiring the right employees that fit into what and where the company is heading to and firing the employees who disagree with the company’s policies and the steps that should be taken in order to ensure the safety of all and solidify a solid workplace are what Facebook should do to take a step in eliminating false information from its platform. The new employees coming into the company should also be trained on the right methods and protocols of the company in order to be fully effective. Remarketing their brand in a positive light by putting themselves out there in the community and using their resources to assist others can also help reshape the company’s image in the eyes of the general public. This new plan helps promote profits because the positive light will be shined on the company and people will support Facebook. It also includes courageousness because it is showing that the company cares about the community they are involved with and wants to help improve with their resources. Lastly, it ensures good ethics because there is no possible way that the protocols that can be implemented and the actions Facebook would take can be turned into unethical actions that hurt the company’s future. 

Conclusion

Facebook certainly has had their fair share of mistakes over the last 18 months, up to 2 years and counting. Although, they will continuously be in the news whether it is positive or negative because they are one of the big 5 tech companies including Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft. If Facebook takes the correct actions, they ultimately can repair their image that they have damaged overtime and be in the positive light like they were at their genesis and during their rise to fame. 

Bibliography

News, CBS. “Mark Zuckerberg: Flagging Misinformation about Mail-in Voting ‘Will Apply to the President.’” CBS News,     CBS Interactive, 3 Sept. 2020, www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-zuckerberg-    2020-election-misinformation-president-                 trump/. 

Uberti, David. “Officials on Watch for Disinformation If 2020 Election Results Are Delayed.” The Wall     Street Journal, Dow             Jones & Company, 3 Nov. 2020, www.wsj.com/articles/officials-on-watch-for-    disinformation-if-2020-election-results-are-          delayed-11604399402. 

Bergengruen, Vera. “Social Media Firms Brace For An Election Unlike Any Other.” Time, Time, 23 Sept.     2020,             time.com/5892347/social-media-platforms-bracing-for-election/. 

Myre, Greg, and Shannon Bond. “'Russia Doesn't Have To Make Fake News': Biggest Election Threat Is     Closer To Home.”         NPR, NPR, 29 Sept. 2020, www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917725209/russia-doesn-t-have-    to-make-fake-news-biggest-election-    threat-is-closer-to-home. 

Conner, Adam, and Erin Simpson. “Results Not Found: Addressing Social Media's Threat to Democratic                                       Legitimacy and Public Safety After Election Day.” Center for American Progress, 23 Oct. 2020, 5:00am,                       www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology-policy/reports/2020/10/23/492232/results-not-found-addressing-social-medias-           threat-democratic-legitimacy-public-safety-election-day/. 

The Truth about Twitter: From Fake News to Total Censorship.

Twitter issued a statement in January of 2018 which declared their policy-written power. The blog post clarified the ability to delete any comment they wish- be it from a head-of-state or your Aunt Sally. (3) Twitter disclosed they would not, however, delete an entire account- unlike Facebook. (1) Twitter argues, they were not issuing a threat; The company wishes to foster a healthy and safe environment, free from “trolls” “bots” and types of ‘phobic harassment. (2) The social media site posted, “Today, we use policies, human review processes, and machine learning to help us determine how Tweets are organized and presented in communal places like conversations and search.” (2) Specifically, the company plans to monitor for multiple account sign-ups under the same email.

This implementation has been twisted by our Commander and Chief, backed by the Attorney General. In 2016, electoral candidate Trump made claims that social media platforms were restricting conservative views- by “rigging” search results. (8) This stems from; the removal of Alex Jones from Facebook; claims that google “rigged” search results to limit conservative information; as well as over 50,000 Russian “bots” that posted propaganda to try to skew the 2016 presidential election. (5) Although censorship is the correct verbiage for twitter’s actions, its definition has been taken to the extreme- rather than what it means literally. Twitter is simply preventing users from offending the majority of the site’s community, by monitoring and removing harmful content. (2)

The question remaining, is what ethical codes were broken, if any? Kantianism argues for truth, that information be available to all- good or bad. Individualism’s main goal is to maximize profit within the limits of the law. Utilitarianism’s ethical framework is of overall happiness, it is a business’ responsibility to ensure the most pleasure over an elongated period of time. Virtue theory is founded in acting in such a way so as to avoid negative character traits, such as hate and dishonesty. 

According to the Chicago Tribune, Twitter makes money by selling advertisement space, and advertisements are aligned with user preferences. (9) Therefore, more users generally means more revenue. Twitter’s idea to monitor posting and ensure a safe environment is in theory supposed to prevent the loss of users, and thus keep turning a profit. So in theory, the move to censor feeds is ethical in the case of individualism. 

Utilitarianism would urge for more measures to be taken in order to remove such offensive content. It would even take twitter’s plans further and perhaps block Trump’s account to maximize overall happiness. As twitter is enforcing censorship now, it may be minimal but the effort is in place to maximize user happiness.

Kantianism would argue that the information should be available site-wide, no matter the content and that people should be treated as an ends in themselves, not a mere means. It should be up to the users themselves to report content as offensive. It is not the company’s responsibility to define what is acceptable or not, because not everyone will have the same standards of acceptable behavior. In this case, twitter is being unethical in the sense that the public has not had the chance to decide for themselves what may be acceptable or not. 

Twitter attempted to keep within ethical boundaries to an extent. With the exception of Kantianism, the company has overall found an ethical balance in censorship. However, their implementation was weak initially, as they made very little public statements regarding their new procedures- outside of their own blog. It is important to address the media before it addresses the company! This gives the upper hand so to speak. Although twitter would have to call out the fact that their current implementations are failing, the important part is that they are fixing the problem. This is how any great company succeeds; honesty and ethics are balanced upon the shoulders of the operations. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.      Leetaru, K. (2018, January 1). Is Twitter ReallyCensoring Free Speech? Forbes.      

2.      Harvey, D. Gasaca, D. (2018, March 15). Serving Healthy Conversation. Twitter

3.      Candeub, A Epstein, M. (11/7/17 ).Keep TwitterAccountable Without Censorship. Wall Street Journal

4.      Sanneh,K. (11/14/14) Censoring Twitter. The New Yorker.

5.      Twitter inc. (1/5/18) World Leaders onTwitter. Twitter.

6.       Swaine, J. (1/19/18) Twitter Admits Far MoreRussian Bots. The Guardian.

7.      Timberg, C. Romm, T. Barrett, D. Fung, B.(9/5/18) Justice Department Warns Tech Companies. The Washington Post.

8.      Twitter inc. (3/1/18 ) Twitter Health MetricsProposal Submission. Twitter.  

9.    Kasperkevic, J. (10/25/2017) How in the world istwitter still not making money?    Marketplace.org.