Evaluating the argument

Is technology as neutral as we think it is? Evaluate and discuss the argument presented in this video.

Suppose a user enters a Google search for “how to commit identity theft without getting caught.” How should the Google search engine respond to such a search query?

Consider the following range of opinions on this question:

Google should operate as a neutral tool, displaying results that give the easiest, safest, and most effective instructions, based on expert analysis of data from all known attempts at identity theft.
Google should display the websites most frequently visited and liked by users who make similar search queries, BUT it should also flag and track the user, in case they’re later arrested for identity theft and the prosecution comes looking for evidence.
Google should display results based on which sites pay to be prioritized for such queries, regardless of whether these are sites of professional identity thieves for hire, sites that help identity theft victims to recover their lives, or anything in between.
Google should respond by displaying no instructions at all. Instead it should display a warning that identity theft is a crime subject to severe punishment, as well as a set of links to the heartbreaking stories of people whose lives were destroyed by identity theft.

Now, take some time - by yourself or with others - to reflect openly, yet critically, on the ethical considerations raised by the various perspectives, and determine where you stand on this issue. What do YOU think, and why?

Want to join the conversation?

Sort by:

No posts yet.