Cyber-Bullying and Public Shaming

(source)

Social Media has become a complete sensation in these first years of the twenty-first century. It has been a way to connect with people in ways we have never before been able. This includes the good, the bad and the ugly. While many use the growing numbers of sites to interact with family and friends to enhance their relationships, others have seen ways into taking others down.

Megan Meier was 13 years old when she took her own life due to the effects of social media and what has now become known as cyber-bullying. She thought that an online stranger-turned-friend, “Josh,” was showing an intimate interest in her. Then, the messages became nasty. The messages were so cruel and effected Megan so greatly that she saw no way out. Turns out, a former friend of Megan with whom she encountered a falling out, partnered with her mother and a family acquaintance to create this cyber-profile to specifically target the young girl.

                                     

(source)

When word spread about the cyber-bullying suicide, newspapers approached the story very differently. The Suburban Journals of St. Charles County gave the specifics of the case without revealing the identities of the people behind the profile. Without any specific criminal charges filed and the nature of the people involved (including a minor), the paper cautiously decided to keep the culprits anonymous. The public turned nasty commenting and E-mailing the paper. Public opinion said the paper and its reporters were not being proper journalists and a large part of the truth and story being left out went against journalistic standards. The public wanted to know who to chastise. The public wanted to be a part of the shaming and punishment.

                                     

(source)

Despite public opinion, the Suburban Journals was justified in their right to shy away from revealing the names of any guilty parties. If we observe Gilligan’s Ethics of Care, we know that all individuals are interdependent for achieving their own interests, and those particularly vulnerable to our choices and their outcomes deserve extra consideration based on their level of vulnerability and affectedness to one’s choices and no one else’s. The contextual details of the situation are especially important to safeguard and promote the specific interests of those involved. As we measure the various stages of human maturity, we understand society and our choices based on principles, social order and ultimately our cultural expectations.

The unnamed teenage girl wanted to see revenge. Her mother and acquaintance (personal employee) wanted to help. They saw a means of living out their own selfish expectations of watching a young girl suffer. While the public understands that the people behind the “Josh” profile should be punished for their actions, they only want to see them suffer for personal justice. They would punish them not to make the situation right, but to feel that end result was more along the lines of the “eye for an eye” mentality. The Journal did not see how reporting the story with the names of the guilty parties would bring justice to either side of the problem. The law would have been the deciding factor on how those people should have been punished, not the paper. Either way, it would have unfortunately never have brought Megan back.

Unlike the Journal, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch DID reveal the names of those involved. As is the case with all ethical dilemmas, either side of the argument can be debated. While it can be said that the Journal was within their ethical rights to keep the names of those involved out of the story, the Post was not wrong in any way to reveal who they were. We can see Aristotle’s Golden Mean being used in this case. Trying to find a middle ground between right and wrong, the Post knew that reporting the story would not bring any lawful justice to the incident. They also knew that pressure to protect the yet-to-be-convicted was a moot point. The middle ground was to let the information speak for itself as humanly unbiased as possible.

Of course we can also use Bok’s Ethical Decision Making model to make decisions on story like this in the future. Unfortunately, as long as the medium exists, people will use it for negative reasons.  As much as we would like to curb anything like suicide, especially from cyber-bullying, there is a good chance it may continue. In the future, we have to decide how best to approach the situation when reporting it to the public. Ethical Decision Making will help us weigh the pros and cons of the situation. First, we must consult our own conscience, then we must seek alternatives. Ultimately, we must ask ourselves how our actions of reporting a story will affect others. It is only then that we can make a decision that is as morally just as possible.

(source)

There's a Bullseye on Your Forehead

It seems as though it should almost be common sense that if you don’t want to be seen “on the grid,” then you should be living “off the grid.” People often live in a state of knowing what they want, but not wanting to seem predictable. They also know what they want until they have it. Suddenly then, whatever they were looking for seems far less appealing.

If someone goes missing, or a crime has been committed, suddenly all the information needed to track that person down (i.e. security camera recordings, bank withdrawals, credit card purchases, etc.) are priceless information. The regular Joe-Schmoe who lives down the block and minds his own business often times sees this as an invasion.

Target has been forthcoming on its ability to data-mine information about its customers. Studying what these purchase habits may be, helps Target better understand the needs of its biggest consumers showing them great deals the store has to offer that is geared towards what they may be looking for. In my opinion, it’s “crazy” to see how my purchasing habits can influence Target’s marketing people to understand what I may want more of, or what I may need in the future. I think this strategy is pure business genius. Evil genius? Yes, But genius nonetheless.

(source)

This also doesn't necessarily apply to JUST women, but it's funny

I remember a few years ago seeing the biggest generation gap firsthand when it comes to information storage like this. I was on a cruise vacation and walking up and down the “Promenade” deck where some really great deals were going on to celebrate the end of the cruise. I, a sucker for a great deal, stopped at the jewelry counter where you could buy silver bracelets for $1 per inch. As I perused my options, the woman behind the counter was taking care of an elderly woman buying a bracelet for her granddaughter. As most (if not all) cruise vacations go, the employee asked to which room number she should bill this transaction. This woman was beyond infuriated that the employee had asked her this information.

“I don’t want people on this boat knowing where I’m staying! I don’t understand why I can’t just pay you here. All week you’ve all been asking me which room I’m staying in, and I DON’T WANT TO TELL YOU. That’s an invasion of my privacy! Maybe it’s because you’re not an American, but in America this wouldn’t fly. This is ridiculous. I should be able to go back to my room in peace and not have to think about how many people know I’m staying there!”

Knowing what it’s like to be an employee who gets yelled at for things beyond their control, I wanted to stick up for this poor girl. I could see it in her eyes that she wanted to tell the lady off, but knew better. Had the young granddaughter not been standing there, I would have given this customer a piece of my mind in the employee’s defense. But then I also remembered that this woman remembers a time before credit cards, before the Internet, before television even! Remembering how easy it was to live your life worry-free without thinking someone knows something about you must be a fond memory. Even the granddaughter tried to tell her grandmother “Grandma, it’s how you pay! That’s just how it is!” But grandma didn’t want to hear it.

On some level, I think I rely on these marketing techniques. I go to Pandora online all the time in hopes of hearing new music I have to hear. I order office supplies at work through Staples and see Staples banner ads on my personal Facebook page. While that’s annoying, since Erin-At-Home couldn’t care less about paper and pen sales, it’s interesting to see how one site leads to another.

Target’s use of data mining is not cause for ethical concern. If you don’t like being followed, don’t purchase things with your credit card. I personally think we should all be happy that people have cracked a psychological code to help us better understand wants and needs in the business place. It is important to understand that there will always be people who will disagree with this. Many want to have their cake and eat it too. They also want to buy said cake with their credit/debit card and want you to look the other way on their purchase habits.

(source)

The Pluralism Theory in ethics shows there are two sides to every coin. While Target hopes these coins land in their cash registers, their approach can be seen as both wrong and right. People in this day fall victim to purchasing things they often never need, but suddenly feel they must have it. Target has found a way to research our habits and understand how to lure us in with creative and subtle marketing strategies. Many people don’t like to be figured out, but we ultimately like to have “pretty things.” The pluralism keeps us in constant wonder as to whether or not these actions by Target are really the right way to go. Yet people haven’t stopped shopping there. Many may go under protest, but at the end of the day, Target is finding a way to bring people in their doors. Since ethics, much like philosophy, is always up for debate, the Pluralism Theory is proof that even though this course of action may not be right, it’s simultaneously not wrong either.

This ethical debate is also a great example of Mill’s Utilitarian Principle. This principle of utility determines the “rightness” of acts by their effect on one’s happiness. Pregnant women are going to need cribs, highchairs, car seats, diapers, wipes, vitamins, etc. Fulfilling these needs will make pregnant customers happy. Target is in business to help you fulfill those needs in a one-stop-shop atmosphere. You can’t blame a corporation for trying to squeeze a few more pennies out of you with impulse buys either.

(source)

(I’m not sure how Target does this, but they get me to spend close to $50 more than I ever anticipate every time I go in there. I’m not even mad)

Mill’s principle is two-sided. Customers of Target are being lured in by deals specifically geared towards them. Target wants to make them happy knowing they can find these items at their stores. Many may not realize this because Target randomly places the ads and coupons customers are looking for amidst items they have no desire to purchase. Many customers are happy to see sales for items they want and need. They are also happy when they feel this has all happened by chance rather than reason. Target is happy that few people are on to their schemes and even happier every time the cash register rings yet another transaction.

It is possible to also suggest that this particular case is an example of Communitarianism as well.  As stated in the link, This ethical theory is a debate of how individuality and community influence work together to create a particular culture.  This theory may raise more questions than definitive or opinionated answers, but it is interesting to consider. A community can be defined as a web of relationships among individuals that crisscross and reinforce one another. Historically, communities have been small and localized. With the exponential emergence of chain stores like Target, our definition of community is vastly changing. Corporations like this influence style, spending and understanding of our world.  Individuals who are well-integrated into communities are better ale to reason and act in responsible ways than isolated individuals. But if social pressure to conform rises, this could undermine the individual self. 

Target has influenced our community (read: our nation) as a whole. They have found a way to be the influential, well-integrated member of our society. They understand how we think, feel and act as individuals. In turn, we fall prey to their persuasive techniques. This could cause many women to walk around with the exact same, mass-produced, diaper bag thus being less individual. But, they will fulfill the need and community expectation that mothers should have their babies’ belongings in one, fashionable bag.

There have been many times in my life where I have found myself saying one of two things
1) “You’re not mad at what I just said. You’re just mad that I called you out on something you didn’t realize about yourself.” (Often times, the people I’ve said this to find themselves agreeing to this statement - even if they’re not happy to realize it).

2) “I may not always be right, but I’m never wrong.” (I mostly just say this one to ruffle people’s feathers, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised when people have agreed with me).

Overall, people over react at the idea of being tracked by corporations. These major companies don’t want to haunt you in bed at night. They just want you to sleep peacefully in the bed you bought from them.  Target isn’t wrong in trying to figure out what makes people tick and how to get them to buy items from them. It may not be right in the eyes of some, but it isn’t wrong either. I think many people also just don’t like knowing that people can figure out what their next plan of action will be, or what else they might want. If they don’t explicitly say it themselves, they don’t want people to think anything about them. Advertisers and PR practitioners should be wary at their approach and should probably stay under the radar to keep people less concerned, or “creeped out,” but their practices are a win-win to make money and help people find the things they’re looking for.