Indian Institute of Management Sambalpur

Master of Business Administration (2023-25)

Course Name: Business Ethics

Project Report: Facebook: Ethical Dilemma for Data Privacy & Content Moderation

Submitted To
Prof. Sumita Sindhi

By Group 03
S.No. Student’s Name Roll No.
1. Amouli Raj 2023MBA084
2. Anshu Rai 2023MBA086
3. Joshi Isha 2023MBA108
4. Nishtha Taneja 2023MBA123
5. Pulkit Arora 2023MBA130
6. Rishabh Kumar 2023MBA133
7. Ritik Mittal 2023MBA134
8. Sejal Vyas 2023MBA140
9. Shalbani Ghosh 2023MBA141
10. Swagata Samanta 2023MBA146

On

01st March 2024

 Index

S.No. Topic Page No.

1. Introduction 3
2. Data Privacy Dilemma 3
3. Cambridge Analytica Scandal 3
4. Stakeholder Analysis 5
5. Assessing Facebook's Data Privacy Dilemma through Ethical 6
Frameworks
6. Analysis of Ethical Frameworks and Recommendations of Facebook’s Data 9
Privacy Dilemma
7. Content Moderation Dilemma 10

8. Examples surrounding Facebook's content moderation 13

9. Controversies surrounding Facebook's content moderation 14

10. Stakeholder Analysis of Content Moderation 15

11. Assessing Facebook's Content Moderation Dilemma through Ethical 17

Frameworks
12. Analysis of Ethical Frameworks and Recommendations of Facebook’s 19
Content Moderation Dilemma

13. Conclusion 21

14. Epilogue 25

15. Plagiarism Report 27

2
 1. Introduction
Facebook was founded in 2004 and has today emerged as a social media giant with over 3
billion active users monthly across the globe. It fosters communication by connecting
individuals and communities, thereby enabling cultural exchange on a large scale. However,
Facebook has been facing complex ethical dilemmas which is challenging its abilities to
maintain a transparent and responsible environment, not only to its user base but also to its
stakeholders.
Facebook faces two major ethical dilemmas:
1) Users’ data privacy versus business model sustainability
2) The ethical dilemma of content moderation. Freedom of speech versus harmful content.

2. Data Privacy Dilemma

Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook), has faced criticism for
presenting seemingly contradictory statements regarding the proprietorship and privacy of user
data. Facebook confronts a fundamental dilemma concerning the preservation of user privacy
in the face of its economic model's reliance on targeted advertising and data collection. This
dilemma is highlighted by the tension.
Over the years, Mark Zuckerberg, the former Facebook CEO and current CEO of Meta, has
issued contradictory statements concerning data privacy. As he said in 2018, "We have a
responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you."
Conversely, he underscored the significance of "personalized advertising" as a means to
"fund free services".
These statements underscore the inherent conflict between Facebook's dedication to
safeguarding user privacy and its economic model, which heavily depends on user data.

3. The Cambridge Analytica Scandal

The Facebook user privacy narrative underwent a significant pivotal moment with the
Cambridge Analytica scandal. The incident occurred on the third-party application "This Is
Your Digital Life," which was created by Aleksandr Kogan, a researcher. It involved the
unauthorized gathering of user information. This software unlawfully obtained information
from both its users and their Facebook acquaintances, exposing the personal information of
millions of individuals.
In 2018, it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm, had obtained

without the explicit assent of up to 87 million Facebook users' personal information. The data
was acquired through the "This Is Your Digital Life" personality assessment application, which
collected information from users' contacts in addition to the aforementioned information, in
violation of Facebook's policies. The incident at hand has elicited considerable concern
regarding Facebook's data security and the protection of user privacy. This incident shed light
on the vulnerability of user data and underscored the potential for its exploitation, particularly
with regard to exerting influence over political campaigns and elections. Public outcry and
extensive media attention: The Cambridge Analytica scandal provoked a broad and collective
public outcry. This occurrence prompted investigations from various governmental and
regulatory bodies, and is considered a turning point in the public discourse surrounding online
security and the protection of personal information. Beyond what Cambridge Analytica has,
further controversies have arisen regarding data security and privacy on Facebook, which
include the following:

Objections to location monitoring: Concerns have been raised regarding Facebook's

collection and use of user location data, even when the application is not in use. The utilization
and possible integration of facial recognition technology by Facebook have generated
disapproval on account of their susceptibility to exploitation for surveillance objectives and
encroachment on user privacy.

These incidents highlight ongoing concerns regarding Facebook's handling of user information
and the potential consequences for individual privacy and societal well-being. It is significant
to mention that Facebook has implemented additional rigorous data privacy controls and
conducted internal audits in an effort to alleviate these concerns. However, the controversy
surrounding user privacy and Facebook's business model remain central issues in the ongoing
dialogue regarding data ownership and responsible data management.
March 2018 marks the beginning of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which exposed the
unauthorized collection of user data. Following that, Facebook came under severe scrutiny,
which culminated in Mark Zuckerberg's congressional testimony, during which he recognized

4
the need for improved privacy protections. At present, Facebook is mired in controversy and
scrutiny concerning privacy issues and data handling procedures.

As a result, regulatory intervention and heightened transparency are being called for.
•

4. Stakeholder Analysis: Facebook’s Ethical Dilemma of Data Privacy

Users: Users are the most concerned about their data privacy and their control over it.
Users fear not only the breach of their data and its misuse but also the psychological
impact that comes with it due to targeted advertising which is nothing but the effect of
their personal information sold every now and then. They constantly feel that
somebody is constantly following their internet footprint, due to which they would
feel that they would have no autonomy. In addition to this, the users are also unaware
about the fact that to what extent their data is being collected, which makes them lose
their trust in Facebook. Users would want that the communication from Facebook
• regarding data collection should be more transparent and that they should have control
over what type of information are they comfortable sharing with, with respect to data
settings.
Advertisers: If we look from the Advertiser’s perspective, it is important for them to
reach their target audience even at the cost of user privacy because that is bringing
them revenue, but building brand trust among its consumers is also crucial to them. If
consumers think that data collection is a breach of their privacy, it would be seen as
unethical by consumers and therefore it can jeopardize the reputation of the brands
who are involved in such practices. But at the same time, advertisers are also
concerned about the effectiveness of advertisements that are targeted in an
• environment where privacy is now a major concern. They might want to seek other
methods of reaching their targeted audiences that are not only ethical but also
transparent.
Shareholders: Facebook’s current model that is data driven, generates a significant
amount of revenue through targeted advertisements. Shareholders might hold a view
that restricting data collection will negatively effect Facebook’s revenue and thereby
its profitability and shareholders wouldn’t desire that. But non compliance to data
privacy on Facebook’s part will also jeopardize its brand image thereby leading to
decline in revenues and profitability. In both cases, it’s a lose-lose for shareholders
but the latter is more dangerous to shareholder’s wealth. If Facebook fails to address
users’ privacy concerns, it can lead to negative publicity and shake shareholders’
confidence that will impact stock prices. That can be a long-term destruction to

7
Facebook’s brand image. So, shareholders might recognize this concern, allowing
Facebook to use data responsibly and protect users’ privacy.

8
 • Government: Government plays a very important role in protecting the rights of the
users in this digital age including the users’ right to privacy. This will involve
government introducing stricter regulations and prevent any type of violation of user
privacy. At the same time, government also has to foster economic growth and
companies like Facebook has a significant contribution to the economy. And because
companies like Facebook operate internationally, it is important for governments to
collaborate and set effective data protection regulations. But this may also bring a
dilemma to the government because as much as it wants to protect users’ privacy
rights, but sometimes, for national security purposes, it is impossible for government
to come up with 100% privacy assurance for users.

5. Assessing Facebook's Data Privacy Dilemma through Utilitarianism, Virtues, and

Rights-based Approach

1. Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism claims that the morally right action is the one that maximizes overall happiness
and well-being for everyone affected. Let's analyze Facebook's dilemma:

Benefits of Extensive Data Collection and Targeted Ads:

• Improved User Experience: Personalized features and ads can enhance the user
experience by providing content and information relevant to their interests.
• Economic Benefits for Facebook: Targeted ads can be more effective, generating
revenue to invest in new features and innovation.
• Economic Benefits for Advertisers: Targeted advertising can connect consumers with
relevant businesses, potentially boosting economic activity.

Potential Harms of Extensive Data Collection and Targeted Ads:

• Privacy Violations: Data breaches and unauthorized use of personal information can
cause anxiety, loss of trust, and even financial harm.
• Manipulation and Discrimination: Highly targeted ads can exploit vulnerabilities,
manipulate choices, and lead to discriminatory practices based on user data.
• Addiction and Psychological Harm: Algorithmic manipulation can promote addictive
behaviors, affecting users' mental well-being and decision-making.

9
Utilitarianism offers a framework for assessing the dilemma, but it doesn't provide a definitive
answer. Finding the right balance requires careful consideration of potential benefits and harms,
ongoing evaluation, and prioritizing practices that maximize overall well-being while
mitigating potential negative consequences.

2. Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics focuses on cultivating character traits conducive to a good life, such as honesty,
fairness, and respect. Let's analyze Facebook's situation through this lens:
Relevant Virtues:
• Honesty: Facebook should be transparent in its data collection practices and avoid
misleading users about how their information is used.
• Fairness: Users should be treated fairly regarding their data. This means offering clear
choices and controls over their information and avoiding manipulation or discrimination
based on collected data.
• Respect: Facebook should respect the autonomy and privacy of its users. This means
acknowledging their right to control their personal information and using it responsibly.

Facebook's Actions and Virtue Ethics:

a) Extensive Data Collection: This practice can be seen as contrary to honesty and respect
as it raises questions about transparency and potential for misuse.
b) Targeted Advertising: While potentially beneficial, it can violate fairness if it exploits
user vulnerabilities or leads to discriminatory practices.

Virtue Ethics suggests Facebook should strive to cultivate a character that prioritizes honesty,
fairness, and respect towards users when dealing with their data. This translates to transparent
practices, offering robust control options, and prioritizing genuine user experiences over
manipulative advertising tactics.

3. Rights-Based Approach
The Rights-Based Approach emphasizes respecting and upholding the fundamental rights of
individuals. Let's analyze Facebook's dilemma through this lens:
Rights:
• Right to Privacy: Individuals have the right to control their personal information and
decide how it is used, stored, and shared.

10
 • Right to Freedom of Expression: Individuals have the right to express their opinions
and beliefs without undue interference.

Facebook's Practices and Rights:

• Extensive Data Collection: This practice can be seen as violating the right to privacy as
it raises concerns about the extent of data collected, informed consent, and potential for
misuse.
• Targeted Advertising: While not inherently problematic, it can lead to discrimination if
algorithms base ads on sensitive data like race, religion, or political beliefs, violating
the right to non-discrimination.

Upholding Rights in Practice:

• Informed Consent: Facebook should seek explicit and informed consent for data
collection and use, allowing users to make informed choices about their data.
• Transparency and Accountability: Facebook should be transparent about its data
practices and accountable for any misuse or breaches, allowing users to enforce their
rights effectively.
• Algorithmic Justice: Facebook should develop and deploy algorithms that are fair and
unbiased, ensuring they don't perpetuate discrimination or exploit user vulnerabilities.

A rights-based approach requires Facebook to acknowledge and respect the fundamental rights
of its users regarding their data. This translates to transparent practices, informed consent,
minimizing data collection, and ensuring algorithmic fairness to avoid discrimination and
manipulation. By upholding these rights, Facebook can operate ethically while still achieving
its business goals responsibly.

6. Analysis of Ethical Frameworks and Recommendations of Facebook’s Data Privacy

Dilemma

1. Findings from the Ethical Analysis:

Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Rights-Based Approach reveals several key findings
regarding Facebook's data privacy dilemma. All three frameworks raise concerns about the
potential harms associated with extensive data collection and targeted advertising, including
privacy violations, manipulation, discrimination, and addiction.

11
 • Utilitarianism highlights the need to balance potential benefits with potential harms.
Finding the optimal balance can be challenging due to difficulties in quantifying
happiness and well-being.
• Virtue Ethics emphasizes the importance of honesty, fairness, and respect in dealing
with user data. Facebook needs to prioritize transparency, user control, and genuine
user experience over manipulative practices.
• The Rights-Based Approach underscores the importance of respecting fundamental
rights, such as privacy, freedom of expression, and non-discrimination. Facebook's
practices should ensure informed consent, data minimization, transparency, and
algorithmic fairness.

2. Recommendations for Facebook:

Based on the findings, the following recommendations are suggested for Facebook:
• Increased User Control: Facebook should prioritize user control over their data by
implementing robust and user-friendly settings. This means offering granular control,
allowing users to choose exactly what information is collected, how it's used, and who
it's shared with for specific features or advertising. Additionally, clear and accessible
opt-out options for data collection and targeted advertising entirely would empower
users and demonstrate respect for their privacy decisions.
• More Transparent Practices: To build trust with users, Facebook should prioritize
transparency by publishing comprehensive and user-friendly policies outlining data
collection, usage, and sharing practices. Regularly communicating clear and concise
updates about changes to these practices would further demonstrate transparency.
Additionally, conducting independent audits of its data practices demonstrates a
commitment to compliance with regulations and ethical principles, showcasing its
accountability for responsible data handling.
• Stronger Security Measures and Accountability: Facebook needs to prioritize
robust security to safeguard user data. This includes implementing up-to-date and
effective measures against unauthorized access, breaches, and misuse. Furthermore,
showcasing accountability is crucial. This involves taking swift action and offering
compensation to users affected by data breaches or misuse. Finally, Facebook should
actively cooperate with regulatory bodies and contribute to establishing ethical
frameworks for data privacy within the tech industry. These steps demonstrate a
commitment to responsible data management and user protection.
12
By prioritizing transparency, user control, responsible data practices, and accountability,
Facebook can navigate the data privacy dilemma and establish trust with its users, ultimately
contributing to its long-term success.

7. Content Moderation Dilemma

The content moderation dilemma faced by Facebook, and many other social media platforms,
revolves around the conflict between two fundamental principles: freedom of speech and the
prevention of harmful content. This dilemma is complex and multifaceted, presenting
significant challenges in navigating ethical, legal, and societal concerns.
1. Freedom of Speech vs. Harmful Content: At the heart of the dilemma lies the tension
between allowing free expression and preventing the spread of harmful content such as
hate speech, misinformation, and incitement to violence. While freedom of speech is a
fundamental right protected by constitutions and laws in many countries, harmful
content can have real-world consequences, from inciting violence to spreading false
information that undermines democratic processes.
2. Subjectivity in Determining Harmful Content: Determining what constitutes
harmful content is subjective and can vary based on cultural, social, and political
contexts. What one group may perceive as harmless or even beneficial expression,
another may view as dangerous or offensive. This subjectivity makes it challenging for
platforms like Facebook to develop consistent and universally acceptable content
moderation policies.
3. Ethical Concerns and Public Pressure: Facebook, as a major social media platform
with billions of users worldwide, faces intense public scrutiny and pressure to address
concerns about harmful content. Users, advocacy groups, governments, and other
stakeholders exert influence on the platform to take action against specific types of
content deemed harmful. This pressure often leads Facebook to implement stricter
content moderation policies, even if it means restricting certain forms of speech.
4. Role of Private Companies in Regulating Speech: Unlike governments, which are
bound by constitutional and legal frameworks, private companies like Facebook have
more leeway in setting their own rules and policies regarding speech regulation.
However, this raises questions about accountability, transparency, and due process.
Users may feel disenfranchised if they perceive that decisions about their speech are
made arbitrarily or without adequate recourse.

13
 5. Lack of Democratic Input and Oversight: While Facebook's establishment of a
content moderation oversight board may resemble a form of governance, it lacks the
democratic legitimacy and accountability associated with elected governments. Users
have limited influence over the platform's policies and decisions compared to the
democratic processes that govern traditional institutions.
6. Global Reach and Cultural Sensitivity: Facebook operates on a global scale, serving
diverse communities with different cultural norms and legal frameworks. Balancing the
need to enforce community standards with respect for cultural diversity and local laws
presents a significant challenge. What may be considered acceptable speech in one
country could be prohibited in another, leading to inconsistencies and controversies in
content moderation.
7. Corporate Influence and Economic Considerations: Facebook's content moderation
decisions can be influenced by various factors, including financial interests, advertiser
preferences, and market pressures. Advertisers, governments, and other stakeholders
may exert influence on the platform's policies and practices, raising concerns about the
prioritization of profit over principles.

In summary, the content moderation dilemma facing Facebook involves navigating a complex
landscape of competing interests, ethical considerations, and legal obligations. Striking the
right balance between freedom of speech and the prevention of harmful content requires careful
consideration of the diverse perspectives and interests at stake, as well as ongoing dialogue and
collaboration among stakeholders.

14
• The difficulty of defining "harmful content": There is no universally agreed-upon
definition of what constitutes harmful content, and what one person finds inoffensive,
another may find offensive or even dangerous. This makes it difficult for Facebook to
create clear and consistent policies for content moderation.
• The tension between free speech and preventing violence: Facebook is committed
to free speech, but it also wants to prevent its platform from being used to incite
violence. This can be a difficult balancing act, as some speech that may be considered
harmful or offensive can also be protected by free speech principles.
• The challenge of moderating content from government officials: Facebook is
particularly hesitant to moderate content from government officials, even if it is
considered harmful, because it does not want to be seen as interfering in politics or
silencing important voices. However, this can also lead to the spread of harmful or
misleading information.
• The need for clear and consistent policies: If Facebook is going to implement
"emergency" content moderation policies during times of unrest, it needs to have clear
and consistent guidelines for what types of content will be removed and how these
policies will be applied. These guidelines should also be transparent to the public.

15
 • The importance of independent oversight: Facebook's content moderation decisions
are often criticized as being arbitrary or unfair. To address these concerns, Facebook
should consider working with an independent third-party to oversee its content
moderation policies.

8. Examples of harmful content posted on Facebook:

1. Hate speech and discriminatory content

• Facebook has been under fire for encouraging white nationalism and racial supremacy
through postings that encourage hatred and intolerance. To improve hate speech
detection, the corporation has reduced the emphasis on unfavorable remarks directed
against White people, men, and Americans. This is a clear example of Facebook being
accused of promoting intolerance.
• Facebook's content moderation systems disproportionately affect Black users, as many
have stated that messages opposing racism or expressing appreciation for Black people
were banned as hate speech. This reveals Facebook's support for white supremacy and
racial hatred.
• According to research, Facebook's algorithms were biassed against Black users.
Computers were more effective at detecting White-shaming remarks than other groups,
influencing hate speech rules.
• Despite efforts to solve the issue, Facebook's algorithms have proven inefficient in
identifying violent hate speech in network advertising. Facebook allowed
dehumanizing hate speech ads encouraging violence against Ethiopian ethnic groups.

2. Misinformation and disinformation campaigns

• It has been uncovered that Facebook and Google finance global disinformation by
sending millions of advertising money to viral actors, so contributing to the destruction
of information ecosystems throughout the world. This financial support encourages the
spread of misleading information and disinformation on social media sites like
Facebook.
• Visual disinformation: Images are a major source of inaccurate content on Facebook,
where visual disinformation is common. Research found that a substantial number of
Facebook posts are false; they typically contain nasty, sexist, or prejudiced content.
Misinformation included QAnon conspiracy theories, dishonest statements about social
movements like Black Lives Matter, and false allegations against political people.

16
• Violent or graphic content o Imagery of Violent Deaths o Graphic Violence

9. Controversies Surrounding Facebook's Content Moderation Policies &

Enforcement
1. Accusations of bias and censorship
• Ambiguous Content Moderation Rules: Facebook's content moderation
criteria have been criticized for their lack of clarity and consistency,
making it difficult to precisely identify and remove harmful information
while yet allowing for free expression. The platform's unclear content
limits have raised concerns about its efficacy in combatting misinformation
and hate speech.
• Inconsistent policy implementation: Despite efforts to eliminate toxic
content, Facebook has faced criticism for inconsistently enforcing its own
rules. The service has struggled to quickly remove posts that violate its
rules, resulting in some potentially hazardous content being live. The
platform's inconsistency in implementing regulations has raised concerns
about its commitment to combating misinformation, hate speech, and other
harmful content.
2. Difficulty in defining and removing harmful content without infringing on free
speech
• Political actors are now outsourcing their disinformation operations to
external public relations and marketing firms, altering their strategies to
fight social media platforms' detection techniques. Facebook and Twitter
have clearly recognized disinformation campaigns and taken steps to
remove instances of coordinated fraudulent activity from their platforms.
• Visual deception is pervasive on Facebook, with a study finding that 23%
of photo postings about US politics contained misleading material. The
disinformation included QAnon conspiracy theories, false statements about
the Black Lives Matter movement, and unfounded charges against notable
figures like Joe Biden's son.
• Facebook has been chastised for failing to effectively enforce its rules on
election misinformation, conspiracy theories, hate speech, and other
prohibitions. The platform's AI tools have been inefficient in assessing

17
 material since they favor potentially viral content, resulting in slower-than-
expected or inconsistent performance.

10. Stakeholder Analysis on Content Moderation Dilemma

1. Users:
• Restriction and Suppression of Valid Opinions: Users can have their apprehensions
regarding the potential outcomes of the restricting viable perspectives and also the valid
opinions, even when they do not constitute harmful content, all in an effort to eliminate
harmful information. This further can inhibit a healthy debate and the flow of exchange
of ideas and thereby impeding free speech.
• Lack of Openness and Accountability: In the absence of transparency in the area
concerning content moderation decisions, it may arise as a potential concern for the
users. Further, the uncertainty regarding the classification of detrimental content, and
who gets to decide whether the content is detrimental or not, the underlying reasons for
the removal of specific posts may result in the aggravation of the development of
sentiments of injustice and resentment.
• Inconsistent Enforcement: Facebook's content moderation policies can be perceived by
users as those exhibiting biases toward specific groups or viewpoints, as opposed to
others. Further, this may result in an erosion of confidence in the platform and a
perception of unjustified profiling.

2. Content Developer:
• Reduced Reach and Engagement: Even if the information is deemed detrimental,
removing it can have a substantial effect on the creator's audience and level of
interaction. Potentially, their capacity to establish a rapport with their audience,
garner support, and generate revenue from their endeavours could be impacted.
• Livelihoods at Risk: The livelihoods of creators who rely on paid partnerships,
brand collaborations, or other revenue-generating mechanisms on Facebook may be
profoundly impacted by content removal. As a result, these financial losses and the
unpredictability of future revenue streams may materialise.

• Stifling Creativity and Expression: Content creators might encounter limitations in

their capacity to freely express their ideas and exhibit creativity as a result of
concerns surrounding the possible categorization of their work as dangerous. This

18
 could potentially hinder their ability to effectively interact with their audience and
convey a wide range of perspectives.

3. Civil Society Groups:

• Spread of misinformation: The organisations have their valid apprehension
regarding the dissemination of disinformation and hate speech. Also these
organisations have majorly been concerned with the platform's capacity to
efficiently remove detrimental content, specifically that which instigates violence,
endorses discrimination, or undermines public health initiatives.
• Concerns on Algorithmic Bias: There can be valid scope of concerns that may arise
from the potential for algorithmic bias in the elimination of detrimental content,
which could result in the disproportionate exclusion of content representing
particular groups or points of view.
• Impact on Democracy and Social Cohesion: In addition to undermining democratic
processes, the extensive distribution of detrimental material can erode confidence
in institutions and amplify social divisions as there have been many cases where a
large stir has taken place with networking sites such as Facebook have been the
breeding ground.

4. Government Authorities:
• Check on dissemination of harmful content: Governments are concerned about the
negative societal impacts of bad material, such as hate speech, incitement to
violence, and undermining public health programs.
• Safe Digital Infrastructure: Government entities aim to enhance internet safety, with
a particular emphasis on protecting children and young individuals who are
particularly vulnerable, by developing a secure digital framework.
• Balance Between Freedom of Expression and Public Safety: Governments must
strike a compromise between protecting their citizens' online well-being and
security while still preserving free expression.

11. Assessing Facebook's Content Moderation Dilemma through Ethical

Frameworks
1. Utilitarianism:
19
Facebook’s top concern should be public welfare. In this regard, it is known that Cambridge
Analytica without consent collected personal data of people illegally putting the privacy and
autonomy of millions of users in danger. This also means that it influenced the perception of
the general public especially during elections. The debate is a case in point on how unregulated
release of private information can erode democracy as well as influence opinion. Therefore,
Facebook needs to stop illegal acquisition and usage of user data even if this leads in reduction
of harmful contents.

Hence, content moderation is necessary for prevention of recurring tragedies; this process will
help reduce dangerous content, hate speech and false information found on the website.
Empirical evidences show that non-controlled contents cause discrimination, aggression and
lack of confidence to state institutions.

Thus, Facebook must prioritize harm-reduction oriented content screening while respecting
freedom of speech. Such rules should be based on transparency; they have to be backed up by
robust enforcement mechanisms and involve early detection and deletion mechanisms.

2. Rights:
Facebook must consider their users’ privacy rights, autonomy rights as well as their right to
express themselves. Still these actions violated users’ rights to privacy through acquiring and
manipulating individual details.

Moderating content should balance protection from harm against free speech for instance
fairness and accountability which ensures open policies or governance frameworks along with
management of user data. Facebook must remove harmful content to ensure users’ safety,
dignity and non-discrimination.

When it comes to content control, personal as well as group safety should take precedence over
freedom of speech. It involves allowing users to report offences and seek reparations or
proactively identifying and removing such damaging posts. By doing so Facebook will be able
to maintain user rights while also creating an environment that is respectful and safe online.
3. Virtue Ethics:

Some people may argue that Facebook’s response during Cambridge Analytica incidence was
lacking because there were ways through which the company could have built a better ethical

20
framework for these concerns. To win back users trust, Facebook should have been more
vigilant about justice, accountability and damage prevention in its operations.
• Justice: After the scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, Facebook investigated,
enunciated and altered itself accordingly. Although it faced criticism on its original
handling of this matter, the company addressed consumer complaints as well as
regulatory investigations. The fact that Facebook allowed third-party developers access
to its user data without any kind of control or authorization raised questions on fairness
in data practices by the firm. With regard to everyone’s content moderation policies and
data procedures, Facebook’s commitment towards justice includes a fair approach for
everyone on their platform.
• Accountability: After admitting their guilt in relation to Cambridge Analytica,
Facebook made changes to enhance its data security and privacy. Suggestions for
preventing this were made by Mark Zuckerberg while giving a testimony before the
congress. Critics also added that for Facebook did not anticipate the problems until they
happened. Responsible accountability requires remorse for previous mistakes,
enhancing measures of protecting information as well as promoting ethical corporate
behaviour.
• Harm prevention: Following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook limited
developer access to user data and enhanced privacy protections. Nonetheless, concerns
still surround both the effectiveness of these measures and the potentiality of data
manipulation and exploitation on this platform. In order to prevent harm from occurring
through its platform, Facebook has to finance strong content moderation systems,
partner with authorities and professionals in the field, or empower individuals to
manage their own online experiences more effectively.

12. Analysis of Ethical Frameworks and Recommendations of Facebook’s Content

Moderation Dilemma
The key findings from ethical analysis of Facebook's content moderation challenges are:
1. A conflict arises between the preservation of freedom of expression and the protection
of users from potential harm. Striking a delicate balance between these two fundamental
rights poses a challenge for Facebook, as the removal of harmful content may be

21
 interpreted as suppressing expression, while allowing it to persist can lead to real-world
adverse effects.
2. This ethical challenge comes with numerous aspects, as the extensive data, subjective
nature of harmful speech, and diverse cultural and legal factors worldwide make it a
highly intricate task for Facebook.
3. No single ethical framework provides a perfect solution. Attempting to maximize
overall happiness (Utilitarianism) is challenging due to diverse perspectives.
Emphasizing good character traits (Virtue ethics) may not offer clear guidance for
specific decisions. Safeguarding everyone's rights (Rights-based approaches) is
complex, as consensus on acceptable limitations is difficult. This highlights the
difficulty in making sound ethical decisions.
4. The analysis stresses a vital hybrid approach, merging ethical strengths. It involves clear
rules based on human rights, balanced AI-human moderation, robust user feedback, and
continual learning for Facebook's adaptability.
5. The analysis concludes that there are no easy solutions to Facebook's content
moderation challenges. It is an ongoing process that requires careful consideration of
various ethical principles and continuous adaptation to the evolving online landscape.

Overall, it emphasizes the need for a nuanced approach that balances various ethical principles,
user rights, and the specific challenges of the online environment.

Potential Solutions and Recommendations

The suggested solutions and recommendations for addressing Facebook's content moderation
challenges, drawn from the ethical analysis, include:

1. Transparent and Clear Guidelines

• Establish and regularly update transparent community standards,
collaboratively developed with diverse stakeholders, explicitly detailing
prohibited content and providing the rationale for restrictions.
• Provide understandable explanations to users when their content is removed or
restricted. This fosters trust and accountability.
• Publish regular transparency reports detailing the volume of removed content,
the categories of restrictions, and an analysis of trends in harmful content.
2. User Rights and Appeal Options
• Simplify reporting of harmful content with clear categories and guidance for users.

22
 • Establish fair and prompt appeal procedures, allowing users to challenge decisions
and reinstate content.
• Collect user opinions on moderation actions and overall platform health.

3. External Collaboration and Expert Consultation

• Collaborate with other tech companies, experts, and advocacy groups to share best
practices, inform policies, and develop industry-wide standards.
• Actively engage with academics, human rights advocates, and marginalized
communities to understand their perspectives and refine moderation strategies.
• Fund research initiatives exploring the effectiveness of moderation, the impact of
harmful content, and potential technological advancements.

4. Sophisticated Approaches to Content Moderation

• Train AI and human moderators to better understand the context of content,
especially satire, humor, and social commentary, to avoid misinterpreting harmless
content.
• Invest the most time and energy into moderating the types of content that are most
likely to cause immediate and severe harm, such as incitement to violence, credible
threats, and child exploitation.
• Go beyond removal with a range of options for harmful content, such as
downranking, adding warnings, or providing links to counter-narratives

A multi-pronged and adaptable approach is needed. Facebook should continually evaluate and
improve these solutions based on feedback, technological advancements, and changing societal
norms.

13. Conclusion Key

Takeaways:
• Profit vs. Ethics: Facebook often seems to prioritize its business model over user rights
and ethical considerations.
• Algorithmic Amplification: Facebook's algorithms are designed to maximize
engagement, which can potentially amplify the spread of harmful content even when
the original intent wasn't malicious.
• Lack of Transparency: Limited transparency into data collection practices and
moderation processes contributes to a lack of trust from users.

23
These dilemmas present significant challenges for Facebook:
• Navigating evolving public expectations: What constitutes acceptable data usage and
content moderation standards are constantly changing, making it difficult for Facebook
to keep up.
• Maintaining user trust: Balancing profit with ethical considerations can create a
perception that Facebook prioritizes business interests over user well-being, chipping
away at trust.
• Developing comprehensive solutions: Implementing clear and effective data privacy
protections and content moderation policies that address the nuances of free speech and
potential harms requires ongoing innovation and adaptation.

Facebook has undertaken various initiatives to address these issues, but the company
continues to face criticism and scrutiny. Here's a brief overview:
Data Privacy:
• Policy changes: Facebook has introduced privacy settings adjustments and
implemented measures like the "Clear History" tool to give users more control over
their data.
• Ongoing efforts: The company faces ongoing legal battles and regulatory pressure
regarding data privacy, prompting them to constantly evaluate and refine their practices.

Freedom of Speech vs. Harmful Content:

• Content moderation policies: Facebook has established content moderation policies and
utilizes AI tools to identify and remove harmful content.
• Independent Oversight Board: The company established an independent Oversight
Board to review content moderation decisions, offering more transparency and
accountability.
• Challenges remain: Defining harmful content while respecting free speech remains a
complex issue, with ongoing debates about the effectiveness and fairness of Facebook's
approach.
The ethical dilemmas faced by Facebook illustrate just how important it is for large tech
companies to prioritize ethical considerations alongside their business goals. Here's why:
• Preserving User Trust: When a company disregards ethics in favor of profit, it erodes
the trust of its users. This can have long-term negative consequences for the business,
as users become more hesitant to share information and engage with the platform.

24
• Upholding Public Responsibility: Companies like Facebook have enormous influence
and reach. They have a responsibility to use that power ethically and to ensure their
platform doesn't cause undue harm to individuals or society.
• Fostering Innovation: An ethical approach isn't just about damage control. It can foster
innovation, leading to new products and features that are both profitable and respect
user rights.
• It's crucial that businesses like Facebook don't treat ethical considerations as mere
checkboxes. They must embrace continuous evaluation and improvement:
• Listen to Diverse Voices: Seek feedback from users, experts, and advocacy groups to
understand the full range of perspectives on ethical issues.
• Proactive Approach: Actively identify potential risks and harms before they materialize,
rather than just reacting to scandals.
• Embrace Transparency: Be open about data usage and content moderation policies,
providing clear explanations to users.

14. Epilogue

a) Data Privacy

What Facebook did:

• Introduced privacy setting adjustments and tools like "Clear History" to offer users
more control over data.
• Faced legal battles and regulatory pressure, prompting ongoing adjustments to data
practices.
What could be improved:

• Granular control: Granting users more specific control over what data is collected and
how it's used.
• Transparency: Communicating data usage policies clearly and accessibly.
• Meaningful consent: Ensuring informed consent before collecting and utilizing user
data.

25
 b) Freedom of Speech vs. Harmful Content:

What Facebook did:

• Established content moderation policies and utilized AI tools for content removal.
• Created an independent Oversight Board to review content moderation decisions.
What could be improved:

• AI refinement: Continuously improving the accuracy and nuance of AI tools to identify

harmful content while minimizing errors.
• Human oversight: Combining human expertise with AI for fairer and context-based
content moderation decisions.
• User education: Partnering with experts to educate users about online safety, media
literacy, and responsible social media practices.

26
15. Plagiarism Report:

27
28