When words were first printed, rather than spoken, it represented a monumental shift in the way we, as a species, communicate. No longer would communication be limited to the definite audience listening.
The content of the message could be distributed again and again over long periods of time. The number of people a message could reach became indefinite. With recent advances in technology, specifically the development of the Internet, we find ourselves on the verge of a similar shift. With today’s technology, people can distribute messages to numerous recipients almost instantaneously. However, unlike the printed word, we now have the ability to respond and share our own views and opinions. At the cutting edge of this technology, we find the …show more content…
Facebook offers its users the opportunity to connect with friends, family, and those users who share common traits, such as interests or hobbies. Therefore, in our communications, we direct our messages to this audience, which may not necessarily be information that we would wish to become public. However, the social cost of being able to express our views and opinions to a wide audience is that the information we post, while directed as a specific audience, can be available to everyone. In her essay “Privacy, Free Speech, and ‘Blurry-Edged’ Social Networks,” Lauren Gelman uses the term “blurry-edged social networks” to “describe the simple fact that individuals cannot at any given moment list those people who comprise their social networks.” Therefore, we find that to utilize Facebook for the purpose exercising your right to freedom of speech, one must be willing to give up a certain level of …show more content…
Aristotle believed man to be a social animal and, to that extent, we utilize Facebook as a means to find happiness. Given this, it can be said that happiness in this situation can be found by choosing a balance between one’s freedom of speech and right to privacy. Determining this mean can be an arduous task, as Aristotle states, “to hit the mean is hard in the extreme.” However, in determining this mean, we must also take into consideration the freedom of speech and right to privacy of others we may affect. In these considerations, we can also take into account the concept of Utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism, actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number is ethical and results in pleasure. In the context of creating a corresponding tool to incentives for people to publish personal information to the world, we find that these two ideas merge. To prevent speech that harms a privacy interest, the needs (in this case, the happiness) of all affected parties (the greatest number) must be consider. We must balance these needs between a user’s freedom to post content and all users right to privacy. This balance will be the mean between these two spectrums and result in the greatest amount of happiness.
In conclusion, Facebook has fundamentally shifted not only how we communicate, but also how we must perceive the relationship between freedom of speech and the right
The content of the message could be distributed again and again over long periods of time. The number of people a message could reach became indefinite. With recent advances in technology, specifically the development of the Internet, we find ourselves on the verge of a similar shift. With today’s technology, people can distribute messages to numerous recipients almost instantaneously. However, unlike the printed word, we now have the ability to respond and share our own views and opinions. At the cutting edge of this technology, we find the …show more content…
Facebook offers its users the opportunity to connect with friends, family, and those users who share common traits, such as interests or hobbies. Therefore, in our communications, we direct our messages to this audience, which may not necessarily be information that we would wish to become public. However, the social cost of being able to express our views and opinions to a wide audience is that the information we post, while directed as a specific audience, can be available to everyone. In her essay “Privacy, Free Speech, and ‘Blurry-Edged’ Social Networks,” Lauren Gelman uses the term “blurry-edged social networks” to “describe the simple fact that individuals cannot at any given moment list those people who comprise their social networks.” Therefore, we find that to utilize Facebook for the purpose exercising your right to freedom of speech, one must be willing to give up a certain level of …show more content…
Aristotle believed man to be a social animal and, to that extent, we utilize Facebook as a means to find happiness. Given this, it can be said that happiness in this situation can be found by choosing a balance between one’s freedom of speech and right to privacy. Determining this mean can be an arduous task, as Aristotle states, “to hit the mean is hard in the extreme.” However, in determining this mean, we must also take into consideration the freedom of speech and right to privacy of others we may affect. In these considerations, we can also take into account the concept of Utilitarianism. In Utilitarianism, actions that produce the greatest good for the greatest number is ethical and results in pleasure. In the context of creating a corresponding tool to incentives for people to publish personal information to the world, we find that these two ideas merge. To prevent speech that harms a privacy interest, the needs (in this case, the happiness) of all affected parties (the greatest number) must be consider. We must balance these needs between a user’s freedom to post content and all users right to privacy. This balance will be the mean between these two spectrums and result in the greatest amount of happiness.
In conclusion, Facebook has fundamentally shifted not only how we communicate, but also how we must perceive the relationship between freedom of speech and the right