CMSC 304

Social and Ethical Issues in Information Technology

Bringing it all together + Writing

Research

Judgement Call

Judgement Call

Gameplay (4+ rounds):

• each round, consider one of the articles
• identify the stakeholders on whiteboard, select 10, write on stickies, put on cards
• (skip step 4)
• shuffle the 3 decks separately and deal
• based on your RATING card, STAKEHOLDER card, and PRINCIPLES card combination you're dealt, write a review of that technology from the stakeholder's point of view
• shuffle reviews and 1 person read reviews out loud, then discuss

CMSC 304

Social and Ethical Issues in Information Technology

Writing Week #1

Some notes about the writing process

Some notes about the writing process

• Writing and coding are both iterative processes, requiring successive refinements and re-factoring
  • If you've written large programs, you might laugh at the idea of writing code by starting at the top of a blank screen and proceeding linearly until finished, with a completed, correct program as the result
    • Same is true for writing! It's never completed in just one pass, and you shouldn't expect to start from top to bottom and then done
• ​​Anyone can learn to write well, but it requires practice
  • ​just because you struggle with it now, doesn't mean you're stupid, inept, or naturally bad at it...you just need practice!
  • and, no matter how practiced you are, writing = pain
    • ​occasionally there is joy to be found in this suffering, especially when it's over

Some notes about the writing process

• Writing and coding are both iterative processes, requiring successive refinements and re-factoring
  • If you've written large programs, you might laugh at the idea of writing code by starting at the top of a blank screen and proceeding linearly until finished, with a completed, correct program as the result
    • Same is true for writing! It's never completed in just one pass, and you shouldn't expect to start from top to bottom and then done​
• Computer Scientists often must write to persuade someone to adopt our point of view or take some action ("in our algorithm, we shouldn't encode race as a quantitative value because <xyz>")
  • Persuasive writing requires understanding of the reader's interests, perspectives, and goals

Where to start?

• We've already created an outline, maybe you put a few notes in there
• Often the introduction and conclusion are hardest to write, because you have to sum up the whole paper! Its fine to save these for last
• We're asked to make a recommendation based on our analysis, so let's save that for after we write those parts!
• We need to summarize and expound on the stakeholders, their concerns, and ethical frameworks - let's start here!
• Think about the paper, paragraphs, and sentences as DELICIOUS SANDWICHES

Regarding the sandwiches: essay level

Regarding the sandwiches: paragraph level

Please check out this collection I've created for you!

tool: raindrop.io

What is at stake?

Why Make Arguments?

• In order to have productive discussions, we need to have sound arguments
  • otherwise, we will just talk in circles
  • this is especially true in ethics discussions, when people are prone to emotional attachment to ideas
• Arguments are "good"

• An argument is a connected series of statements
• The argument's purpose is to demonstrate that another statement, the conclusion, is true

Why Analyze Arguments?

• This course is about learning to reason, not to intuit
  • ​Reasoning requires critical thinking and logic
  • You may intuitively feel something is unethical, but to convince others we should justify with evidence and logic

Is Truthiness    Enough?

• To argue, we need some critical thinking and logic, in addition to our intuitions
  • Logic is a formal system of analysis that helps writers invent, demonstrate, and prove arguments. It works by testing propositions against one another to determine their accuracy.
• Some barriers to critical thinking:
  • cognitive biases
  • emotional reasoning
  • overuse of personal experience
  • over-reliance on small case studies
  • over-reliance on authority (Myers, 2009)

https://limpohann.blogspot.com/2013/12/comforting-lies-bitter-truth.html

S. Kraus, S. R. Sears, and B. L. Burke, “Is Truthiness Enough? Classroom Activities for Encouraging Evidence-Based Critical Thinking,” vol. 13, no. 2, 2013.

Reasoning + Critical Thinking

Seven Steps:

1. What am I being asked to believe or accept?
2. What evidence is available to support the claim?
3. What alternative ways are there to interpret the evidence?
4. Rate the evidence/alternatives on 0-10 scale based on validity/strength
5. What assumptions or biases came up when doing the above steps? (e.g., using intuition/emotion, authority, or personal experience rather than science)
6. What additional evidence would help us evaluate the alternatives?
7. What conclusions are most reasonable or likely?

S. Kraus, S. R. Sears, and B. L. Burke, “Is Truthiness Enough? Classroom Activities for Encouraging Evidence-Based Critical Thinking,” vol. 13, no. 2, 2013.

Common Pitfalls

• Avoiding the Burden of Proof

  • Assuming the truth without evidence, and being too disinterested to find it

• Avoiding the Issue

  • Faulty thinking is to avoid the true issue

• Avoiding Responsibility

  • Over reliance on authority - authorities have been wrong before. Positions must be supported by evidence

• Faulty Logic

  • Carrying an argument to a ridiculous extreme

  • Called logical fallacies

• ​Attachment to ideas

  • ​Try not to get too attached to ideas, just because they're yours. Try to keep an open mind, and think from others' perspectives

S. Kraus, S. R. Sears, and B. L. Burke, “Is Truthiness Enough? Classroom Activities for Encouraging Evidence-Based Critical Thinking,” vol. 13, no. 2, 2013.

Best Practices for Critical Thinking + Writing

• Encourage debate and seek out alternative points of view
• Construct more than one hypothesis to match the evidence. Beware untestable hypotheses - they cannot be used for the basis of critical reasoning.
• Try not to get overly attached to an idea because it is yours, be fair and keep an open mind

From: http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/critical_thinking.html

First, some terminology

• When discussing ethics works, it is important that we correctly identify the argument being made
• An argument is a connected series of statements, including at least one premise, intended to demonstrate that another statement, the conclusion, is true.
  • A premise is a statement that supports, or helps lead to, an argument’s conclusion
  • A conclusion is the statement that is inferred (reasoned) from the argument’s premises
  • Evidence sources include assertions, data, common belief, case studies, legal judgements, expert opinion, personal experience, quotes, statistics, etc
• A common task is to examine the arguments made to support a claim.
  • If the arguments are not strong, we might be able to identify a defect, or a fallacy (mistaken reasoning)

https://computer-ethics.com

Why Arguments

• In order to have productive discussions, we need to have sound arguments
  • otherwise, we will just talk in circles
  • this is especially true in ethics discussions, when people are prone to emotional attachment to ideas
• Arguments are "good"
• A common task is to examine the arguments made to support a claim.
  • If the arguments are not strong, we might be able to identify a defect, or a fallacy (mistaken reasoning)

• An argument is a connected series of statements
• The argument's purpose is to demonstrate that another statement, the conclusion, is true

"It is raining outside: I walked outside my front door this morning and I immediately got soaked by the rain. Every time it rains puddles form everywhere on the ground. Therefore, there must be puddles everywhere outside."

Identifying Argument Elements

https://www.educationworld.in/critical-thinking-the-critical-thinking-series-part-2-what-is-argument-mapping/

• An argument is a connected series of statements
• The argument's purpose is to demonstrate that another statement, the conclusion, is true​

  • A conclusion or contention is the statement that is inferred (reasoned) from the argument’s premises.

• An argument should include at least one premise or reason​

  • A premise or reason is a statement that supports, or helps lead to, an argument’s conclusion.

• The process by which we reason in order to reach a conclusion is referred to as inference.
• A counterargument or objection is an opposing viewpoint or objection to the original argument.

"It is raining outside: I walked outside my front door this morning and I immediately got soaked by the rain. Every time it rains puddles form everywhere on the ground. Therefore, there must be puddles everywhere outside."

• An argument is a connected series of statements
• An argument should include at least one premise​

  • A premise is a statement that supports, or helps lead to, an argument’s conclusion.

• The argument's purpose is to demonstrate that a statement, the conclusion, is true​

  • A conclusion is the statement that is inferred (reasoned) from the argument’s premises

• The process by which we reason in order to reach a conclusion is referred to as inference.

Identifying Argument Elements

Consider this passage:

Some people claim that we should not let immigrants enter the United States. This is because if immigrants are allowed to enter the U.S. they will take jobs away from U.S. citizens. There are only so many jobs available within the United States and the more people are available to fill the jobs, the steeper the competition for work will be. An objection to the idea that immigrants take jobs from U.S. residents is that there is a demonstrable increase in economic growth that comes with immigration. Thus immigration can actually create jobs for native-born citizens as opposed to taking them away.

https://www.educationworld.in/critical-thinking-the-critical-thinking-series-part-2-what-is-argument-mapping/

Your turn

Title: The Nuclear Dilemma: Is It Time to Reconsider Our Energy Future?

As the world races against the ticking clock of climate change, the conversation around nuclear energy is heating up. Often maligned for its association with catastrophic accidents, nuclear power is now being reconsidered by experts as a potential lifeline in our battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to the latest IPCC findings, nuclear energy boasts some of the lowest life-cycle CO2 emissions—outperforming even solar power. This might come as a surprise to those who have long touted renewables as the ultimate green solution.

But the benefits don’t stop at the environment. When it comes to safety, nuclear energy holds an impressive track record. Despite high-profile incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, statistics reveal that nuclear power results in fewer deaths per unit of energy produced than its fossil-fuel counterparts. This might make it the safest bet in an increasingly perilous energy landscape.

Yet, the shadow of disaster looms large. The potential for a nuclear accident—rare but devastating—cannot be ignored. The specter of radiation and long-term environmental damage makes many hesitant to embrace nuclear power fully. Opponents point to the catastrophic consequences of even a single failure, where the release of radiation can render areas uninhabitable for decades, displacing communities and causing severe health problems that persist for generations. The cleanup and containment efforts following such incidents often span years, with costs running into billions of dollars—costs that many argue outweigh the benefits of nuclear energy.

Moreover, there is the issue of nuclear waste, which remains hazardous for thousands of years. The challenge of safely storing this waste without harming future generations is a problem that remains unsolved, casting a long shadow over nuclear power's sustainability. Critics argue that by investing in nuclear energy, we are burdening future generations with a toxic legacy—one that they may not have the technology or resources to manage effectively.

As we stand at this energy crossroads, the question remains: Do we let fear dictate our choices, or do we boldly invest in the technology that could secure a cleaner, safer future? The answer is not simple. While nuclear power presents a compelling case for reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy security, the potential for disaster and the unresolved issue of nuclear waste remind us that the stakes are high. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the future of energy will require careful consideration of both the promises and perils of nuclear power.

Course Rhythm

Title: The Nuclear Dilemma: Is It Time to Reconsider Our Energy Future?

As the world races against the ticking clock of climate change, the conversation around nuclear energy is heating up. Often maligned for its association with catastrophic accidents, nuclear power is now being reconsidered by experts as a potential lifeline in our battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to the latest IPCC findings, nuclear energy boasts some of the lowest life-cycle CO2 emissions—outperforming even solar power. This might come as a surprise to those who have long touted renewables as the ultimate green solution.

But the benefits don’t stop at the environment. When it comes to safety, nuclear energy holds an impressive track record. Despite high-profile incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, statistics reveal that nuclear power results in fewer deaths per unit of energy produced than its fossil-fuel counterparts. This might make it the safest bet in an increasingly perilous energy landscape.

Yet, the shadow of disaster looms large. The potential for a nuclear accident—rare but devastating—cannot be ignored. The specter of radiation and long-term environmental damage makes many hesitant to embrace nuclear power fully. Opponents point to the catastrophic consequences of even a single failure, where the release of radiation can render areas uninhabitable for decades, displacing communities and causing severe health problems that persist for generations. The cleanup and containment efforts following such incidents often span years, with costs running into billions of dollars—costs that many argue outweigh the benefits of nuclear energy.

Moreover, there is the issue of nuclear waste, which remains hazardous for thousands of years. The challenge of safely storing this waste without harming future generations is a problem that remains unsolved, casting a long shadow over nuclear power's sustainability. Critics argue that by investing in nuclear energy, we are burdening future generations with a toxic legacy—one that they may not have the technology or resources to manage effectively.

As we stand at this energy crossroads, the question remains: Do we let fear dictate our choices, or do we boldly invest in the technology that could secure a cleaner, safer future? The answer is not simple. While nuclear power presents a compelling case for reducing greenhouse gases and improving energy security, the potential for disaster and the unresolved issue of nuclear waste remind us that the stakes are high. As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the future of energy will require careful consideration of both the promises and perils of nuclear power.

Argument Structures

we can also look at the structure of arguments

Course Rhythm

Text

https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/criticalthinking1234/chapter/introduction/

From Concepts to Practice

• The main claim must be debatable
  • An argumentative or persuasive piece of writing must begin with a debatable thesis or claim.
  • In other words, the argument must be something that people could reasonably have differing opinions on.
  • If the claim is something that is generally agreed upon or accepted as fact then there is no reason to try to persuade people

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/establishing_arguments/index.html

Example of a non-debatable thesis statement: "Pollution is bad for the environment."

• This thesis statement is not debatable.

• The word pollution implies that something is bad or negative in some way.

• All studies agree that pollution is a problem; they simply disagree on the impact it will have or the scope of the problem. No one could reasonably argue that pollution is unambiguously good.

Example of a debatable thesis statement: "At least 25 percent of the federal budget should be spent on limiting pollution."

• Debatable thesis because reasonable people could disagree with it

• Some people might think that this is how we should spend the nation's money. Others might feel that we should be spending more money on education. Still others could argue that corporations, not the government, should be paying to limit pollution.

From Concepts to Practice

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/logic_in_writing.html

CMSC 304

Social and Ethical Issues in Information Technology

Logical Flow for many-question prompts

• Logical flow helps the reader move smoothly from one sentence to the next, and one paragraph to another.
  • your ideas presented in each sentence should follow a thought process about that topic
• Achieve a flow state with:
  • Logical layout of content, addressing one point at a time in a reader-friendly, logical sequence
  • Using transitions to blend sentences and paragraphs together
  • Consistency of style, tone, tenses and punctuation
    • For example, if you are writing from a third-person perspective, and you suddenly switch to first-person, you will confuse your reader

• Assume each paragraph in the body of the paper focuses on one of your claims from your argument
  • It's fine to use more paragraphs per topic, but 1 is the absolute minimum
  • If you can't write a whole paragraph about a claim, it either needs more depth or it needs deletion
• Between paragraphs, use transitions to provide connections - show exactly how your ideas are connected
• A transition sentence      located at the end of a paragraph should hint at the next paragraph's contents

General tips for structuring papers: transitions

• Sentences also need transitions between them
  • But don't do it for EVERY sentence, that would be weird
• Often, the transition will act as an introduction to the next idea
• You can use some handy transition words

General tips for structuring papers: transitions

Words and ways to avoid

https://www.dropshippinghustle.com/words-chatgpt-uses-a-lot/

Words and ways to avoid

ChatGPT has been infamous for over-using certain phrases, so best to avoid them (even in your own original writing!)

• rich tapestry
• grapple
• highlighting and underscoring

https://www.dropshippinghustle.com/words-chatgpt-uses-a-lot/

Flow: Examples

Example of what NOT to do

Professor's essay prompt:

Write an essay on the use of computers in law enforcement. Issues include benefits to crime fighting, invasion of privacy, problems caused for innocent people because of errors in databases, etc. Describe cases where the computer system has been very helpful in catching a criminal, and describe cases where it has caused serious problems. What databases are typically accessed in these cases? How do they prevent unauthorized access? Have errors in NCIC been reduced? Who benefits the most? Who is harmed the most? What are some mitigation strategies?

Example of what's better

Professor's essay prompt:

Write an essay on the use of computers in law enforcement. Issues include benefits to crime fighting, invasion of privacy, problems caused for innocent people because of errors in databases, etc. Describe cases where the computer system has been very helpful in catching a criminal, and describe cases where it has caused serious problems. What databases are typically accessed in these cases? How do they prevent unauthorized access? Have errors in NCIC been reduced? Who benefits the most? Who is harmed the most? What are some mitigation strategies?

This essay is about the use of computers in law enforcement, which includes issues in crime fighting, invasion of privacy, problems caused for innocent people, etc. Some cases where the system has been helpful in catching criminals are in white collar crime and human trafficking. Some cases where where the system has not been helpful are in recidivism prediction. Some databases that are typically accessed in these cases are background check databases. They prevent unauthorized access by requiring a password. Errors in NCIC have not been reduced.

Example of what's better

Professor's essay prompt:

Write an essay on the use of computers in law enforcement. Issues include benefits to crime fighting, invasion of privacy, problems caused for innocent people because of errors in databases, etc. Describe cases where the computer system has been very helpful in catching a criminal, and describe cases where it has caused serious problems. What databases are typically accessed in these cases? How do they prevent unauthorized access? Have errors in NCIC been reduced? Who benefits the most? Who is harmed the most? What are some mitigation strategies?

This essay is about the use of computers in law enforcement, which includes issues in crime fighting, invasion of privacy, problems caused for innocent people, etc. Some cases where the system has been helpful in catching criminals are in white collar crime and human trafficking. Some cases where where the system has not been helpful are in recidivism prediction. Some databases that are typically accessed in these cases are background check databases. They prevent unauthorized access by requiring a password. Errors in NCIC have not been reduced.

The use of computers in law enforcement has improved crime fighting but also raised privacy concerns. For example, databases used in background checks have helped solve white-collar crime and human trafficking cases. However, the same systems can lead to errors, such as incorrect recidivism predictions that unfairly impact innocent people. Although efforts have been made to reduce errors in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), challenges remain. Ultimately, while law enforcement gains significant benefits, individuals affected by database errors often face the greatest harm, highlighting the need for careful mitigation strategies.

Example of what's better

The use of computers in law enforcement has improved crime fighting but also raised privacy concerns. For example, databases used in background checks have helped solve white-collar crime and human trafficking cases. However, the same systems can lead to errors, such as incorrect recidivism predictions that unfairly impact innocent people. Although efforts have been made to reduce errors in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), challenges remain. Ultimately, while law enforcement gains significant benefits, individuals affected by database errors often face the greatest harm.

• Transitions like "but," "however," "for example," and "although" create clear connections between ideas.

  • "but" contrasts benefits (improved crime fighting) with concerns (privacy)

  • "however" introduces drawbacks for a balanced argument: (+pro) they helped solve crimes, (-con) they have errors

• "Ultimately" helps tie the argument together by summarizing the main tension and providing a concluding statement

• Paragraph flow is logical: progresses from info --> benefits --> drawbacks --> summarizing the impact. This makes the paragraph cohesive rather than a list of disconnected points.

Flow Patterns

https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/flow/

Writing with Specifics

Writing with Specifics

In a majority of your text, you should write with specifics

• Write in a style that reduces vagueness, filler, unsubstantiated hyperbole, or persuasive statements without sauce

• To understand the importance of being specific in your text, it can help to imagine you have received a restaurant bill for the wrong amount. Let’s say you ask the server to inquire:

Image generated by DALLE-2

Writing With Specifics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit

Writing With Specifics

Writing With Specifics

Writing With Specifics

Writing With Specifics

Writing With Specifics

Writing With Specifics

Writing With Specifics

Dr. Chat to the rescue?

Dr. Chat to the rescue?

Dr. Chat to the rescue?

Dr. Chat to the rescue?

Your turn!

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions.

Your turn!

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

  • The exploitation of gig workers may exacerbate economic inequality within the community

  • Corporate executives benefit significantly more than Dashers

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

Your turn!

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

  • The exploitation of gig workers may exacerbate economic inequality within the community

  • Corporate executives benefit significantly more than Dashers

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

  • Good: For corporate executives, maximizing profits and growing the company leads to increased revenue, which benefits investors and expands market share

  • Bad: Focus on maximizing profit often leads to low wages and lack of benefits for Dashers

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

Your turn!

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

  • The exploitation of gig workers may exacerbate economic inequality within the community

  • Corporate executives benefit significantly more than Dashers

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

  • Good: For corporate executives, maximizing profits and growing the company leads to increased revenue, which benefits investors and expands market share

  • Bad: Focus on maximizing profit often leads to low wages and lack of benefits for Dashers

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

  • The exploitation of Dashers might not be illegal under current regulations, but it raises ethical concerns about fairness and economic justice

  • Maximizing efficiency might involve minimizing delivery times and costs, but this could lead to unfair treatment of drivers, such as pressuring them to work under unsafe conditions or for low wages

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

Your turn!

• The exploitation of gig workers may exacerbate economic inequality within the community

• Corporate executives benefit significantly more than Dashers

• Good: For corporate executives, maximizing profits and growing the company leads to increased revenue, which benefits investors and expands market share

• Bad: Focus on maximizing profit often leads to low wages and lack of benefits for Dashers

• The exploitation of Dashers might not be illegal under current regulations, but it raises ethical concerns about fairness and economic justice

• Maximizing efficiency might involve minimizing delivery times and costs, but this could lead to unfair treatment of drivers, such as pressuring them to work under unsafe conditions or for low wages

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

Your turn!

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

Corporate executives significantly benefit from DoorDash’s model through increased profits and market expansion, but these gains often come at the cost of fair treatment for Dashers. Even though the treatment of Dashers may be within legal bounds, the low wages and lack of benefits for Dashers can contribute to greater economic inequality. This creates an ethical tension around fairness and economic justice, where there is a choice between a "good" outcome for the company (profit) and a "bad" outcome for the workers (inequality). From a deontological perspective, this tension...

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Your turn!

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

Corporate executives significantly benefit from DoorDash’s model through increased profits and market expansion, but these gains often come at the cost of fair treatment for Dashers. Even though the treatment of Dashers may be within legal bounds, the low wages and lack of benefits for Dashers can contribute to greater economic inequality. This creates an ethical tension around fairness and economic justice, where there is a choice between a "good" outcome for the company (profit) and a "bad" outcome for the workers (inequality). From a deontological perspective, this tension...

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Your turn!

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

Corporate executives significantly benefit from DoorDash’s model through increased profits and market expansion, but these gains often come at the cost of fair treatment for Dashers. Even though the treatment of Dashers may be within legal bounds, the low wages and lack of benefits for Dashers can contribute to greater economic inequality. This creates an ethical tension around fairness and economic justice, where there is a choice between a "good" outcome for the company (profit) and a "bad" outcome for the workers (inequality). From a deontological perspective, this tension...

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Your turn!

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

Corporate executives significantly benefit from DoorDash’s model through increased profits and market expansion, but these gains often come at the cost of fair treatment for Dashers. Even though the treatment of Dashers may be within legal bounds, the low wages and lack of benefits for Dashers can contribute to greater economic inequality. This creates an ethical tension around fairness and economic justice, where there is a choice between a "good" outcome for the company (profit) and a "bad" outcome for the workers (inequality). From a deontological perspective, this tension...

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Your turn!

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

Corporate executives significantly benefit from DoorDash’s model through increased profits and market expansion, but these gains often come at the cost of fair treatment for Dashers. Even though the treatment of Dashers may be within legal bounds, the low wages and lack of benefits for Dashers can contribute to greater economic inequality. This creates an ethical tension around fairness and economic justice, where there is a choice between a "good" outcome for the company (profit) and a "bad" outcome for the workers (inequality). From a deontological perspective, this tension...

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Your turn!

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

Corporate executives significantly benefit from DoorDash’s model through increased profits and market expansion, but these gains often come at the cost of fair treatment for Dashers. Even though the treatment of Dashers may be within legal bounds, the low wages and lack of benefits for Dashers can contribute to greater economic inequality. This creates an ethical tension around fairness and economic justice, where there is a choice between a "good" outcome for the company (profit) and a "bad" outcome for the workers (inequality). From a deontological perspective, this tension...

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

Your turn!

Let's answer these questions from the paper and then try to organize them in a logical flow with transitions. 

• Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people?

• Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”?

• Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

2 options for this activity:

1. write your points on sticky notes and re-arrange them, then add transitions. Once happy with order, write it into your paper google doc
2. write your points as bullets into your paper google doc in an appropriate section of your outline, re-arrange and add transitions

Tools and Tips to Avoid Verbatim Text

• If you must copy-paste text (there isn’t always time to re-write things when skimming/scanning multiple papers), put it into a DIFFERENT DOCUMENT or tool than the one you’re using for composing your own text
• Use a reference manager (Mendeley, Zotero, etc.) that will allow you to annotate a source, and correctly export perfect citations
• You can naturally get rid of plagiarism by re-writing your text to be more concise in style
  • Challenge yourself: how short can you get this sentence, with correct grammar and all the same information?
  • Note: concise doesn't mean less information, it means dense information
• Get in the habit of immediately copying and saving the link to something you might want to use. If you cannot find the source that you got your info/date/ideas from, do not use it

Your turn!

• Summarize the stakeholders, their concerns, and other issues from your play through of Judgment Call

  • What individuals and groups have an important stake in the use of this technology, and what were their “reviews” of the tech? Are the concerns of some of those individuals or groups more important? Why?

  • Could actual or imagined use of this technology be damaging to someone or to some group, or unevenly beneficial to people? Does broad deployment of this technology involve a choice between a good and bad alternative, or perhaps between two “goods” or between two “bads”? Are these issues about more than solely what is legal or what is most efficient? If so, how?

  • What are the options for implementing this technology ethically to address the above? How can we make sure all the relevant persons and groups have been consulted? Are there other creative options?

Your turn!

• Research and identify some shortcomings of the article

  1. Check your list of “stakeholders” and their concerns from your table’s rounds of Judgment Call. Which are considered in your article? Which are left out? Does the article wrongly assume that concerns of some groups are more important?

  2. You could also check to see whether there is a fallacy in the argument. For example, you could question the definition of the “bias” or “fairness” used by ProPublica that leads to the claim that the COMPAS algorithm is biased and, therefore, unethical (i.e., focusing on the assumptions forming the argument). Alternatively, you could question whether their methodology is correct or identify a mistake in their analysis (i.e., focusing on the premises themselves). You could attempt this yourself, but finding other sources that explain it will be most helpful.

Your turn!

• Using your description of stakeholders, concerns, trade-offs, etc, construct an ethical analysis of the technology and the article’s argument, according to virtue, deontological, and utilitarian ethics frameworks. Which framework does the article’s argument align with, and why? What issues are left out?

CMSC 304

Social and Ethical Issues in Information Technology

Logical Fallacies

Slippery Slope Fallacy

Assumes a sequence of (undesired) effects will occur

• Perhaps that sequence might occur
• However, this technique insists they are inevitable
• Little evidence is provided 
• "That escalated quickly"

https://9gag.com/gag/a25Zw4E

Strawman Argument Fallacy

Try to make the argument easier to attack by:

• oversimplifying it
• misrepresenting it
• (taking it out of context?)

False Dilemma Fallacy

Classic case of "black and white thinking"

• also simplifies the argument down to two, seemingly contradictory, extremes

Argument from consequences

Text

Appeal to Fear

Use fears about the future that might happen

• Science fiction?
• Sometimes the fear is justified
• However, the difference is that this technique relies on rhetoric​
• Can also resemble slippery slope and false dilemma

Hasty Generalization

Basically, overhyping your evidence

• if you only have 1 or 2 examples, but claim it's generally true
• if your examples are really "edge cases"
• relying on vibes only

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Attacking the person, rather than the argument

• Attempt to divert the discussion
• Two types:​
  • abusive - attack their IQ, status, gender, caste, etc.
  • circumstantial - attack them for cynical reasons

Bandwagon Fallacy

Appeal to common beliefs, again without evidence

• Because people believe it, it must be true
• Frequently used in ads

Guilt by Association Fallacy

Attempts to find resemblance with something undesirable or evil

• a form of indirect liability
• resemblance is often a non-sequitur​

https://elaineou.com/2021/01/17/guilt-by-association/

Media Bias

Ground.news

A sampling of the bias categories follows:

• Far Left: The Independent Left, World Socialist Web Site

• Left: CNN, Huffpost, Daily Kos

• Lean Left: Washington Post, CBS News, Bloomberg, Politico, New York Times

• Center: The Hill, Political Wire, Forbes, The Globe and Mail, Reuters

• Lean Right: Wall Street Journal, Fox Business, New York Post

• Right: Fox News, Newsmax, Breitbart, National Review

• Far Right: Info Wars, Red Voice Media

CMSC 304

Social and Ethical Issues in Information Technology