Recent Entries

HWcase4 Q1

Q1. Prepare case notes on an ethics case which, for this HW, is an example of an ethical code. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (4 or more) to think about or discuss about the case.
A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case.

Answer:

The source of my case is https://playvalorant.com/en-us/news/announcements/valorant-community-code/

Eight important facts are:

My source is the "VALORANT" Community Code. "VALORANT" is a competitive online game made by Riot Games with moderated social functions open to public use.
The first section of their community code, or code of ethics, is centered around ensuring players work as a team. These lists are split into "do's" and "dont's".
The "do" section of the teamwork chapter encourages players to work together on a strategy, boost your teammates victories with celebration, and attempt to do your best with your teammates. The "don't" section encourages players to not give up on their teammates, sabotage the team, or start arguments with their teammates.
The second section requires players to commit to respect and empathy. This is also split into "do's" and "dont's".
The "do" section encourages players to treat others as they wish to be treated, respect individual differences, and to ensure that the online communication channel stays a shared space. The "don't" section encourages players to not use hateful or abusive language, make jokes about others, threaten others, and to respect people's boundaries.
The third section is about using the in-game tools to keep you and the community protected. The "do" section encourages players to turn on language filters, use mutes, and report inappropriate behavior in the multiplayer experience. The "don't" asks players to not abuse the report tool and to not "fire back" against hateful or abusive players.
The fourth and final section covers in-game safety and practices. The "do" section asks players to use strong passwords, notify Riot Games when your account may have been hacked, keep accounts to one user, and to play responsibly. The "don't" section asks players to not use third-party programs that may interfere with gameplay, don't share personal information of yourself or others, don't impersonate other users, and to take breaks when you feel frustrated.
Finally, the Community Code page covers different consequences for breaking these defined "rules" or code, including but not limited to: In-game social restrictions, inability to access the game's competitive ranking system, or temporary to indefinite suspension from the game.

Five questions to ask about the case are:

Have you had experiences online (social media, gaming, etc.) that have seemed like inappropriate or hostile behavior from another party? Why did the other party act that way?
What online companies have your favorite moderation systems or moderation implementation?
What online companies have your least favorite moderation systems or moderation implementation?
Computer Security: Have you ever seen a case where online moderation has failed to uphold the security of their website/game/etc? If so, what was the case?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

HWcase3 Q3

Q3. Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions and/or discussion.
“Conclusions.” Your analysis, opinions, and conclusions about the case.
“Future environment.” 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future scenario.” 3 sentences of average length or more.

Answer:

The facts of the case. Dr. Nemani of Children's Hospital Los Angeles was found to be falsifying data for one public paper and four Public Health Service grants after several years. He falsified it with data from a totally different experiment. After being found out and confronted by the Office of Research Integirty, Dr. Nemani agreed to relinquish much of his academic freedom in order to keep his job for the next four years starting from July 2020.

Analysis. The consequentialist approach suggests in this case that this is ethically wrong because the outcome would be that other researchers and doctors would learn falsified information. The deontological approach seems to imply that this is also ethically wrong as well which differs from the consequentialist approach in that it's ethically wrong because the principal of lying to begin with is wrong. It's hard to decide which approach works best because we do not know why he did it.

Conclusions. Dr. Nemani was given a fair enough punishment for his actions. While being highly unethical it's reasoning is vague as we don't know why exactly he attempted to get away with falsifying information. Nor do we fully understand the potentially repercussions it could have had, had it never been found out.

Future Environment. The repercussions of the falsified data could have been potentially damaging at many stages of research and development. There's no telling what issues this may have caused but it's alarming to think about what else in research may have been falsified for the researcher's own gain. Many researchers have different reasons for why they may lie about data but it appears that efforts to combat this are getting stronger as we go further into the future with organizations like ORI.

Future scenario. Should organizations like ORI no longer exist, we could see the repercussions of research across many fields. Medical and biological fields are among the most alarming to think about false research and data in. Doctors and nurses operating off false info could cost patients in a multitude of ways, not just limited to their lives and well-being but monetarily as well.

HWcase3 Q1

Q1. Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to ethics in research. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (4 or more) about the case.
A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case.

Answer: The source of my case is https://ori.hhs.gov/content/case-summary-nemani-prasadarao

Eight important facts are:

Children's Hospital Los Angeles conducted an investigation with Office of Research Integrity on Dr. Nemani, Research Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Disease at CHLA.
Dr. Nemani had been found engaging in research misconduct by "recklessly including falsified and/or fabricated data" in a public paper and grant applications for Public Health Service funds. These were 5 articles all of similar topic.
The five articles included falsified and/or fabricated image data from unrelated experiments to build upon his published paper and grant applications.
The data which he was fabricating was supposed to be for an enterobacterial infection-induced intestinal epithelial cell injury in a neonatal murine model.
Dr. Nemani entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement as punitive measure.
The Voluntary Settlement Agreement stated that Dr. Nemani would have his research supervised for four years beginning July 2020. A committee of 2-3 senior faculty members at the institution familiar with his field would provide oversight for the four years and review data from their laboratory on a quarterly basis. The committee would also conduct advanced review of any grant applications or grant related work Dr. Nemani submitted.
Dr. Nemani also agreed to exclude themselves from serving in any advisory capacity to Public Health Service.
ORI was to be updated and kept in the loop on everything. There has been no update since.

Five questions to ask about the case are:

Why do you think Dr. Nemani falsified the data?
What do you think the grant money could have been used for?
Would you have done the same?
Do you think the punishment was fitting of the case?
How could computer security relate to the case?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

HW3proj

Q1. For your ethics-related term project (see “Course Information” tab for details): Let us continue to develop it step by step over the semester so that it will be manageable rather than a crunch at the end, as follows. Write up 349 words or more (per person if a group project) if your project is a writing project. If it is not a writing project, do work on the project equivalent in effort to writing 349 words or more, and explain specifically what you did (in much less than 349 words!), giving examples (code, for example) if that makes sense. Put this in your blog, labeling it consistently per the example template.

Answer:
I am going to begin my HW3proj with the very beginning of my paper that I plan to write.

For my ethics paper, I have decided to study the mechanics of modern propaganda and the ethical exploitations that follow it. For the core of this subject, I would like to point to the Johnny Depp v Amber Heard case that gained a massive following through social media earlier this year. What role did modern propaganda play in this case? What was it's scope and impact? These first two questions in particular set the stage for later discussion I will bring on.

To begin, the Depp v Heard case was compliant case filed by plaintiff Depp against defendant Heard in attempt to claim $50 million in defamation damage. The two had been previously married before - 2015 to 2016 (having known each other since 2009) - but divorced due to Heard being physically abused by Depp as reported by Time magazine. Between the divorce and 2022 during the recent case in question, there were several court cases and news reports generated against Depp; Particularly coming from Heard as a source. Hence why Depp opened a case against Heard for defamation and it's damages.

The 2022 case was quite intensive, both sides having both evidence and anecdotes. The Depp v Heard case started in April 2022 and ran until June 2022, with Depp being awarded $10 million in compensation and punishing Heard for $5 million (later reduced by the court to $350,000 due to Virginia state law, where the case took place). Heard was, however, awarded $2 million in compensation due to defamation by Waldman, Depp's former lawyer.

The social media coverage of this case was monumental. The trial was livestreamed on both news and social media for free. For frame of reference, news articles alone had generated more social media interactions in the US than other major news cases at the time such as the Supreme Court decision on abortion and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. No matter what site you were on or what community you found yourself to be a part of, you've most likely heard about this case before and likely even interacted with it as a topic.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depp_v._Heard

Q2. Explain what needs to be done next on the project. Put this in your blog, labeling it consistently per the example template.

Answer:

To do next, I want to delve deeper into the scope and impact social media had on the Depp v Heard case and why I think it's propaganda. Finally, I would like to learn how to better input my sources.

HWproj2 - John-Michael Smith

In continuation of HWproj2, I believe I have decided upon sticking to an individual anecdotal essay. My settled subject is writing about modern propaganda in social media. This may cover popular social media "movements" during recent events such as Depp V Heard, Twitch.TV Amazon fallout, the comparisons of fandom and propaganda, and how propaganda works and is facilitated with modern technology. My waterfall development model will appear as such:

Requirements/analysis will begin with citation and evidence gathering in the form of articles and personal experience.
Design may either stick to being plain writing display on my dreamwidth journal, though I may like to implement my project into a website of my own creation as this is something we are studying in Web Tech class.
In the event I can build a website of my own to compliment the project, I must ensure it makes the project/essay accessible and readable.
In the event I cannot build a website of my own to compliment the project, I will likely continue formatting it through Dreamwidth which would be a simple implementation.
I may test my project through UALR's Online Writing Lab so that it is structured well and provides reliable information as necessary.

HWcase2 - John-Michael Smith

For this case I will be examining moral injury in educators with the follow article as citation: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teachers-often-experience-moral-injury-on-the-job-study-finds/2019/05

Eight important facts are:

Teachers have felt as if they need to put up with "wrong-headed mandates" involving conflicts of interest on how to serve their students. A study by American Education Research Journal finds these may be a major source of moral injury for teachers.
In a survey of urban Midwest educators, 4 in 5 educators confirmed that they had experienced moral injury: "They witnessed other staff doing things that were morally wrong, while almost half said they themselves acted in a way that betrayed their values."
This survey was conducted by Erin P. Sugrue on more than 200 educators working in urban Midwest school district. The group included more than teachers, including social workers, psychologists, counselors, nurses, and instructional support staff.
The framework of moral injury was originally founded in the military by military psychologists and psychiatrists, but has been applied to high-stakes jobs ever since such as caseworkers in the child protective services system.
The survey was done with a 9-item Moral Injury Events Scale tool.
The tool has a number of statements on a six point scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strong agree" in order to gauge if the respondent experienced moral injury. The survey was split into three categories: Transgressions by others, self committed transgressions, and the feeling of betrayal from school leaders, colleagues, education policymakers, etc.
80% of respondents scored above a three on the Transgressions-Other category, almost 70% scored above a three on the Betrayal category. 45% said that they themselves acted immorally on the job.
Educators who worked in schools with larger percentages of students of color - notably high-poverty schools according to the article - were more likely to report moral injury. According to the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, these schools had high suspension rates and low graduation rates for students of color and teachers hadn't received any training on new justice systems ordered by the Department of Education at the failure of school leadership. Sugrue said that it felt as if teachers were supposed to "just get the numbers up so [they] can report that."

Four questions to ask about the case are:

What do you could do or implement had you the power to intervene in moral injury in education? Where would you start?
After seeing the criteria of moral injury in education, could you come up with a scenario that would constitute moral injury as an educator?
As a student, have you felt like you've experienced moral injury before throughout K-12?
How could government abuse of information relate to this case?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

HWcast1 Q3 - John-Michael Smith

Q3. Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the consequentialist and deontological approaches.
“Conclusions.”
“Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way.
“Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it.

Answer:

The facts of the case. Hideo Kojima, game director within Konami since 1986, left the company in 2015 due to an apparent violation of ethics by Konami execs who were inspired to shift towards the mobile/gambling market. This ended in his games, "Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain" and "Silent Hill" both being left unfinished and hastily released by Konami. Later in the year, Konami barred Kojima from accepting his awards from The Game of the Year ceremony and turned the Metal Gear Solid IP into software played on gambling machines and mobile minigames.

Analysis. While Konami had a utilitarian approach for their company, they lacked deontological and virtue ethics. Kojima vice versa. Konami had worried their bottom line might be effected by Kojima's far fetched and high budget ideas, which is very likely why they pressured him out and moved away from his work. Kojima on the other hand wanted his team and his work to be at it's peak no matter how long it took and what the budget said about it.

Conclusions. It's hard to say who's right or wrong about the situation factually. In my opinion, I think Konami's approach was the unethical outcome considering it was at the sacrifice of Kojima's career and art. Not only that, but they kept the IP to Metal Gear and Silent Hill, effectively doing nothing with it but releasing creations under the titles that would later be reviewed poorly for their predatory design, which is a very important bottom line to keep in mind in this case.

Future Environment. Technological advance plays easily into the subject of the creation of games (which if you're like Kojima can be considered a form of art). If technology was more advanced, games would be far easier to make, and situations like this where Kojima's ideas are too big for the budget would happen far less. So at that rate, if this same situation had happened in the future then Konami would have effectively let Kojima go in order to manipulate his creations for their own financial interests (using the IPs for their pursuit into the mobile/gambling market without Kojima's consent).

Future scenario. Imagining this scenario using my future environment as a basis is challenging because in a way this already did happen. There was massive public backlash against Konami in the west after audiences found out what Konami did with the IP post-Kojima. However, there'd be a lot less questionability as to what happened in the studio, giving major creative companies like Konami a lot less leeway in manipulating their developers and creators.

HWcase1 Q1

For this case I will be examining the ethics behind the infamous Konami / Kojima company breakup in 2015, one of the most egregious cases of ethical dilemma in the gaming market. My sources come from Polygon and The New Yorker from initial 2015 interviews, SVG's review from this year, and Konami's revenue reports.

Five important facts are:

Hideo Kojima, game designer, had worked for the publishing company Konami since 1986. Additionally, he creates sub-company Kojima Studios in 2005. His most notable work was within the "Metal Gear" series, which ran under his control from then until 2015 when "Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain" released. The series was wildly popular in America.
In 2007, Japanese company GREE shook the market with a new model for online games. This was an accessible free-to-play model which heavily influenced Konami's interests years later due to the profit the scene obtained in Japan. In the years around the 2010s, Konami appeared to be experiencing major revenue fluctuation, likely due to the production of the "Metal Gear" games.
In 2014, Kojima announces in collaboration with Guillermo Del Toro and Norman Reedus that Kojima Studios is developing a new "Silent Hill" game, a series of which they had just 'acquired' and was as equally beloved as the "Metal Gear" franchise was.
In 2015, a few months before the release of "Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain", Konami announced a corporate restructuring in the works. This began most notably with Konami quietly removing Hideo Kojima and Kojima Productions' branding from the upcoming game's promotional material. This would soon cause a falling out with Kojima and Konami which inspired disbandment between the two soon after. The game came out and would be renown for being quite unfinished compared to what Kojima had planned for it, assumedly Konami had forced the development team to cut corners on Kojima's final "Metal Gear" project.
In the same year after Kojima's disbandment with the company (along with a plethora of employees), Konami cancelled the new "Silent Hill" production and put up a job listing for development on a new "Metal Gear" game called "Metal Gear Survive" which would come out later in 2018 - a "Metal Gear" game made entirely without Kojima. Along with this, Konami prevented Hideo Kojima from accepting his awards at the global Game of the Year ceremony for his work on "Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain". Now, Konami has compartmentalized the series to videos played on Japanese gambling machines and mobile minigames.

Three questions to ask about the case are:

Despite less apparent market growth, Konami appears to be in a more stable place after phasing out Kojima than they were before. Would you commit to the similar actions as Konami if you knew your company would be more stable?
Imagine you owned an art studio and a member of your team was known for pushing the limits of your budget and time for the benefit of their own creation, how far would you let them go? Would you remove them from the team if they went too far?
Are the ethics here relative or is there an absolute ethical conclusion?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

HW1proj

Q1 Answer:

Subject possibility 1: Modern Propaganda in Social Media
What are some examples of modern propaganda in social media? Is the Depp V Heard case a shining example of this?
Is fandom for media on the internet a machine for political propaganda?
What kind of effects do we see from modern propaganda on social media?
How does social media facilitate propaganda?
At what point, if any, should moderators of these sites step in? Or do they influence it on purpose?
Subject possibility 2: How much should someone intervene in morally corrupt situations?
At what levels should you be accountable for intervention in morally corrupt situations?
What are some examples of this (and lack thereof)?
Is it healthier to engage in debate and social conflict regarding morally corrupt topics than it is to ignore it?

Q2 Answer:

Format Possibility 1: Research Report
Pro: Can be referenced if properly formatted and researched.
Con: Is something I have never done before which may cause errors in writing and/or format and damage the validity of the project.
Format Possibility 2: Anecdotal/Opinionated Essay
Pro: Very familiar with writing anecdotal essays.
Pro: Quite fun to write and feels more engaging to read in my personal opinion.
Con: Doesn't offer as much basis for academic development as a research report.
Format Possibility 3: Slideshow
Pro: Can add pictures and videos to support the project.
Pro: Arguably one of the most engaging and accessible ways to present a project.
Con: Requires more handiwork than just writing an essay, not something I am used to.
Individual vs Group Project
I am personally more interested in individual projects. My only experience with group projects has been throughout middle school and high school and none of them really worked out even outside the group dynamic issues. It just never felt like I could engage with the subject quite as well as I could individually, which may be due to the fact we were never really taught how to organize ourselves as a group for group projects.

Q3 Answer:

(a) No questions currently.

(b) No questions currently.

Q4 Answer:
Done!

test post

This is my first ever post on dreamwidth!