Question: What is a language game, and what role does this concept play in Marin’s account of information-sharing norms?

01 Dec 2022,4:34 PM

Part #1

1. What is a language game, and what role does this concept play in Marin’s account of information-sharing norms?

2. What is the difference between the CI model of privacy and the RALC model of privacy?

3. Explain how and why, according to Parsell, membership in a so-called pernicious virtual community is harmful to a member of that community.

4. Norlock believes that relationship-building is an important part of online-shaming practices. In what way?

5. What does Aristotle’s claim that friends are mirrors have to do with the debate among today’s philosophers about whether friendships online are superior or inferior to friendships offline?

Part #2

1. Come up with your own topic.

a. Note that this option is available only if you speak with me in advance (and ‘in advance’ means not a couple of hours before the paper is due). I will suggest some readings for you to do, so you probably do want to start quite early if you plan on taking this option.

2. Let’s say that you get your hands on someone’s social-insurance number. You could do a lot of harm to its owner with it, and every moral theory would say that harming its owner would be wrong. But let’s say you didn’t harm anyone with it, nor did you ever try to. The questions you need to answer (and you can answer them in any order you would like):

a. Does getting your hands on the social-insurance number violate the person’s privacy?

b. Is it wrong for you to get it, even though your knowledge never ends up causing any harm?

c. Is whether it is wrong dependent on how you got it? Consider the case where someone posted it on their Snapchat vs the case where you hacked into a folder on their computer (by, e.g., installing a virus on their computer when they opened an email), and this folder had a file with their social-insurance number.

d. Does it matter whether the owner is an old man who, in his late 70s, doesn’t have any understanding of the Internet, computers, social-media apps, etc., that rises above a basic and superficial grasp of these things? If the owner accidentally posts his social-insurance number online because he doesn’t know about the Internet, does this make your behavior of taking note of the social-insurance number wrong?

e. What do you say about the following, apparently similar case: someone of whatever sex/gender you're attracted to is getting undressed in a room across the street; you can see them through the window if you look. If the person never finds out you're looking and if you don't do anything to harm the person (e.g., you don't take photos, etc.), is it wrong for you to look? Does it make a difference if you take out your binoculars so you get a get a better view? What if you're 45-years old, and the person you're looking at is 15?

f. How do the RALC and CI models of privacy illuminate the moral concerns here? 3. A female celebrity is taking a nude photo of herself to send her to boyfriend. She takes the

photo on her iPhone. She sends it to her boyfriend. Early in the relationship, she explicitly asked the boyfriend not to send the photos to anyone else, and he agrees. Now, it is implicit that this obligation continues. He understands this. The photo is saved to the woman’s iCloud, which she pays for monthly because she appreciates having a back-up to her data in case the phone is ever lost. Her iCloud is locked behind a password (i.e., the password for her Apple account), such that she has to enter the password whenever she is downloading the back-up data to a new phone. The questions you need to answer (and you can answer them in any order you would like):

a. If a hacker breaks into the account by infiltrating Apple’s servers and leaks the nude photos to tabloids, has the hacker done something wrong?

b. Has the hacker done something wrong, even if the woman is not any worse off materially (i.e., she doesn’t lose her job or any future employment prospects, etc.) and the hacker was aware that no material harm was ever going to come of it?

c. Once the photos appear on the Internet, is it wrong of someone to look at the photos when they have the opportunity to do so on Reddit? Let’s stipulate that this person is not going to tell anyone else to look at the photos and is not financially supporting the hackers (i.e., this person is just looking at some ordinary Reddit user’s posts).

d. Is it at all morally relevant whether the hacker breaks into the man’s iCloud back-up? (Let’s say that he saved the photo to his phone, with the result that it was saved to the iCloud; if he had not saved the photo, it would not have been saved to the iCloud, for the sake of this discussion).

e. How do the RALC and CI models of privacy illuminate the moral concerns here? 4. Mitch Parsell discusses the individual harms of having one’s views polarized by echo

chambers online. (Parsell doesn’t talk about “echo chambers,” though, and prefers the term “pernicious virtual community.”) Answer these questions, in any order you would like:

a. What are the individual harms that he identifies?

b. Is everyone who belongs to any pernicious virtual community a victim of these harms?

c. What is the cause of these harms, in Parsell’s view? (Think about it like this: why do these harms occur?)

d. Do you agree with his analysis? I.e., do you think that there are any more harms that Parsell doesn’t identify, or do you think that the harms that he does identify don’t really exist?

e. What are the obligations of the individual in mitigating or preventing these harms? Maybe it’s wrong to blame (or to entirely blame) the pernicious community or the software that makes those communities possible. Do individuals who end up harmed by them have any obligations to themselves? Think about someone who dies of COVID-19 because they were convinced that the vaccine is unsafe thanks to their membership in a pernicious virtual community. Then think about someone who ruins their own life by being part of an “incel” community online and ends up losing their friends, family, and job due to very unflattering and toxic personality changes. Then think about someone else who has been polarized by one such community into not seeking treatment for a mental-health condition such as apotemnophilia or anorexia and ends up with some serious and negative consequences for their health and well-being. To what extent should we blame the community, and to what extent should we hold the individual responsible for their own behavior?

f. OPTIONAL: are there such things as “healthy” echo chambers or “healthy” insulated virtual communities? Parsell writes as though insulated communities are bad things for a person. But should groups that are formed around (e.g.) Holocaust-affected Jewish communities have to consider “every side of the

debate” (i.e., even the views of people who deny the reality of the Holocaust)? Is there something valuable lost when minority groups do not consider hateful points of view expressed by those who despise them? What about when people discussing biology online ignore the points of view of Young-Earth Creationists? You don’t have to attend to all or even any of these examples, so long as you keep your eye on the broader question: what about communities that behave in many (or all) ways like echo chambers but don’t seem, on the face of it, to be particularly objectionable?

5. Consider the alleged social harms caused by echo chambers. Parsell articulates the social harms in terms of the fragmentation of a community. Sunstein articulates the social harms in terms of impediments to democratic action. These accounts are different but, of course, compatible with each other. For the sake of answering this question, you can choose to focus on either Sunstein or Parsell, or both. Answer the following questions (in any order that you would like):

a. What causes these harms, in the eyes of [either Parsell, Sunstein, or both]?

b. Do you agree that these harms, as articulated by [either Parsell, Sunstein, or both], really are dangerous?

c. At the heart of both Parsell’s view and Sunstein’s view is a notion of polarization. But can polarization be a good thing, sometimes? Consider the way that the anti-slavery movement has experienced a truly amazing success throughout the world (although, regrettably, not everywhere): virtually (and perhaps actually) everyone in the West is opposed to slavery, which is a remarkable transformation in light of the fact that for most of Western history, slavery was practiced and even endorsed by many leading philosophers (e.g., Aristotle). Today we hold the extreme position that slavery is never permissible. You can consider this particular case if you would like, but don’t lose sight of the larger question: can polarization be good? Can we use the mechanisms behind polarization according to [either Parsell, Sunstein, or both] to polarize people in a good way?

d. Along lines similar to the previous question, talk about the possibility (or impossibility, depending on your view) of “healthy” echo chambers or “healthy” insulated virtual communities. Sunstein and Parsell write as though exposure to different points of view is either always a good thing or, at least, never a bad thing. But should groups that are formed around (e.g.) Holocaust-affected Jewish communities have to consider “every side of the debate” (i.e., even the views of people who deny the reality of the Holocaust)? Is there something valuable lost when minority groups do not consider hateful points of view expressed by those who despise them? What about when people discussing biology online ignore the points of view of Young-Earth Creationists? You don’t have to attend to all or even any of these examples, so long as you keep your eye on the broader question: what about communities that behave in many (or all) ways like echo chambers but don’t seem, on the face of it, to be particularly objectionable?

e. OPTIONAL: what are some promising solutions to these social problems?

6. Cass Sunstein explains the rapid transmission of misinformation online in terms of cybercascades: specifically, informational cascades and reputational cascades. Sunstein believes that his analysis of the importance of social influences rebuts the view that says that quality and accuracy of information is what ultimately determines what content wins online. Answer the following questions (in any order that you would like):

a. What are informational and reputational cybercascades?

b. OPTIONAL: do you think that there are other kinds of cybercascades that explain the spread of misinformation?

c. Sunstein’s analysis of cybercascades is meant to explain the spread of misinformation, but do you think that these processes are “content-neutral?” Can the same processes function even if the content being spread is not misinformation, but (true) information? Is there anything harmful about leveraging cybercascades for the sake of true and (truly harmless) information (e.g., think of radicalizing people towards an anti-slavery position back when slavery was still an established social institution, if “cyber”-cascades had been possible back then)? Can we – or even should we – use cybercascades for good?

d. Sunstein focuses a lot on social influences when analyzing the spread of misinformation, but he never explicitly dismisses individual responsibility; rather, he never talks much about it. What do you think the role is of the person spreading the misinformation in both informational and reputational cybercascades? What should we expect of ourselves when it comes to sharing content? Consider how difficult it would be to stop relying on testimony: even if we do research, what “research” often means is looking up what other people have said; how do we, therefore, avoid belonging to a cybercascade? Should we simply avoid sharing content altogether, unless we are sure that the information is accurate?

7. Marin attempts to specify norms that govern information-sharing online. One of the most important arguments that she makes concludes that there is no single, universal rule governing the sharing of information. Answer the following questions (in any order that you would like):

a. What is the distinction that Marin draws between purposeful and general social-network sites?

b. Marin thinks that we can understand the norms that govern information-sharing on some social-network site only after we understand what users join, use, and stay on that site. Give one or (at most) two examples of this approach and identify what conclusions Marin reaches on the basis of this approach.

c. Marin seems to think that there is nothing morally wrong or objectionable about having some contexts in which we say to another person something false, while we know that it is false. Do you agree with this, or do you think that we should always say only what is, as we far we know, true? Say why or why not.

d. Marin focuses a lot on the people doing the sharing. She never outright dismisses the possibility that the people reading the content have some responsibility or duty to themselves before they believe the content, but this possibility is not the focus

of her article. In your view, can/should we blame the people who believe the misinformation? Does it vary from case to case? In fact, are there any cases where it makes sense to say that the person sharing the content is not blameworthy (at all) but the person doing the believing has failed at something? (Please keep in mind that we are talking about believing misinformation, and then maybe acting on it; you can think of this as in some ways analogous to widespread participation in “challenges” (on, e.g., TikTok), but this question is more about misinformation.)

8. Norlock discusses online shaming. Puotinen discusses caring online. It is possible that both these thinkers fundamentally agree about life on the Internet, even though they have chosen to focus on two different, competing aspects of it. However, Puotinen does think that claims that the Internet are causing us to be less empathetic are, at the very least, overblown. Answer the following questions:

a. What is Norlock’s central argument concerning online shaming? b. What is Puotinen’s central argument concerning caring online?

c. What does Puotinen think about claims that the Internet and social-media technologies are causing us to be less empathetic?

d. In your opinion, bearing in mind the arguments that you have been considering, which thinker more correctly describes the essence of life on the Internet? Is the essence more shame or more care?

9. Answer the following questions about Norlock’s view of online shaming:

a. What does she have to say about the psychological state and motivations of the shamers?

b. Think about Justine Sacco’s case that Norlock discusses. Sometimes the victim of the online shaming might have done nothing wrong, but surely Sacco did do something wrong: she is no murderer, but there is likely a moral rule against telling racist or, at least, insensitive jokes. (If you disagree, consider cases where someone goes to a hospital and tells mean-spirited jokes about the cancer patients: this is wrong because it is wrong to tell insensitive jokes.) Since Justine Sacco did something wrong, was it really wrong to shame her? She was badly harmed by the shaming, but when we punish people to send them to jail, we cause them great harm (e.g., they lose their job, freedom, access to the outside world, etc.). Punishments are always harmful. So, was the shaming that punished Sacco wrong? Why?

c. Online shaming is a powerful tool: it can certainly be used to ruin people’s lives. Can it be used for good, in your view? Discuss the possibility that the victim of the shaming might learn something from the episode; the possibility that people who watch others get shamed might learn something from the episode; and the possibility that a lot of the motivations of shamers that Norlock discusses could be used to push complacent people into acting for the sake of justice, fairness, goodness, etc.

10. There is a debate about whether offline friendships are superior to online ones. Answer the following questions:

a. What is the argument presented by Cocking and Matthews?

b. What is Briggle’s reply and opposing position?

c. Who is right? You should specifically refute the position that you are opposed to, not merely argue for the correctness of your own position. (This should be the largest part of your essay.)

Expert answer

Language games are a concept first developed by Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, in which language is used as a tool for creating and understanding meaning. They are seen as social constructions that help individuals to create shared categories of understanding about the world around them. In Marin's account of information-sharing norms, language games play an important role in helping people understand the norms governing their interactions with one another. By engaging in dialogue, individuals can negotiate and establish their own meanings based on the specific context they find themselves in. This helps to ensure that all parties involved understand what is expected of them and how they should communicate within the group. Language games also provide a way for groups to develop collective knowledge, which is essential for effective communication and mutual understanding. By engaging in language games, individuals can come to understand the norms governing their group and create an understanding of how they should communicate with one another. This helps to ensure that all parties involved understand the expectations of their group and foster cooperation among members. Ultimately, language games provide a way for people to work together to construct shared meanings and develop effective information-sharing norms.

By establishing common ground within a group through language games, individuals can then begin to create systems of trust that allow them to share confidential information without fear of it being misused or misinterpreted. This is especially important when dealing with sensitive matters such as legal documents or personal relationships. Language games help groups establish boundaries around what information can be shared safely and effectively, thus providing a secure foundation for information-sharing norms.

In short, language games are an important concept in Marin's account of information-sharing norms. By allowing individuals to negotiate and create their own shared meanings based on the specific context they find themselves in, language games help to ensure that all parties understand what is expected of them. They also provide a way for groups to develop collective knowledge which allows people to share confidential information without fear of it being misused or misinterpreted. In this way, language games can create effective systems of trust and facilitate the successful exchange of information within organizations and communities.

What is the difference between the CI model of privacy and the RALC model of privacy?

The CI model of privacy is focused on protecting individuals from the collection, storage and use of personal data by organisations. This model seeks to provide a framework for how organisations should manage their privacy policies and procedures in order to protect people's data. In contrast, the RALC (Reflection-Access-Limitation-Control) model of privacy takes a more holistic approach to privacy protection, emphasising broader issues such as power relations between organisations and individuals. The RALC model encourages organisations to look at the wider effects of their decisions around privacy, including potential implications for society. It also seeks to ensure that all stakeholders have an equal say in the decision-making process about how personal data is managed. Ultimately, both models strive to ensure the privacy and security of individuals' data, but they approach it from different angles. The CI model is focused on providing a framework for organisations to follow when managing personal data, while the RALC model takes a broader view of the privacy landscape. Both models should be considered when designing privacy policies and procedures.

To ensure the most comprehensive privacy protection, it is important to use both the CI and RALC models in tandem. By taking into account both the framework-based approach of the CI model and the more holistic view of the RALC model, organisations can create policies that protect individual data while also taking into account wider societal implications. It is essential that organisations remain mindful of their responsibilities when managing personal data and strive to create robust privacy policies that are reflective of both models. Doing so will help ensure that individuals’ privacy is protected and respected in a responsible manner.

Stuck Looking For A Model Original Answer To This Or Any Other
Question?
Our skilled experts only need your instructions and deadline to help you produce an original and flawless paper.

Question: What is a language game, and what role does this concept play in Marin’s account of information-sharing norms?

Expert answer

Related Questions

What Clients Say About Us

Editing Service

Revision and Proofreading Service

Summary Writing

Paper Help

Article Writing

Math Question - Tutor

Resume Writing

Data Analysis Help

Topic Research

Question: What is a language game, and what role does this concept play in Marin’s account of information-sharing norms?

Expert answer

Related Questions

Exploring the Bristol Myers Squibb and MyoKardia Merger: A Critical Analysis

Embracing Economic Re-globalization: The Role of the World Trade Organization in Fostering Inclusive Integration

Risk Matrix & Dependency Diagrams for a given System Design

Afrobeat's Impact on Cultural Exchange and Social Change Across American Regions: A Critical Analysis

What Clients Say About Us

Editing Service

Revision and Proofreading Service

Summary Writing

Paper Help

Article Writing

Math Question - Tutor

Resume Writing

Data Analysis Help

Topic Research