The article examines a Facebook live broadcast that remained online for close to two hours, showing Robert Godwin Snr’s shooting death. Facebook remained unaware of the live broadcast until 105 minutes later, during which thousands of users had viewed it on the platform (Newcomb, 2017). Accordingly, it is vital to examine the ethical and legal issues surrounding the incident and Facebook’s responsibility on such matters.
The privacy law governs the activities of social media networks like Twitter and Facebook. Breach of confidentiality is a tort action, and the harmed can seek damages (Baldwin, Buckley, & Slaugh, 2017). These regulations control the functioning of social media sites and do not imply that the sites are responsible for what users post on the platforms. Therefore, Facebook has no constitutional obligation regarding what is published on its site because that would give Facebook direct powers to dictate the freedom of speech.
Nevertheless, social networking sites like Facebook are morally obligated to report all crimes that happen on their platform. In this context, Facebook has established various community rules that oversee the platform’s users’ safety. Facebook safeguards these rules by monitoring and managing the consequences of events capable of hurting its users. Any user is urged to report any content they believe is disturbing under the corporation’s community guidelines.
A viable method is to develop an Artificial Intelligence tool that can monitor all materials posted on the site. The tool should be capable of disabling any disturbing live stream instantaneously using filters. With such a tool, it is implausible that users would be capable of posting disturbing live events or content violating the community guidelines. Additionally, a time delay on all live coverage could suffice as a more proactive solution. Social networking sites can use this delay to erase the transmission and deactivate the user’s profile.
As previously noted, breach of confidentiality is a tort action, and those affected can sue Facebook for damages. As a matter of adjudication, the privacy rights include two primary components: a tort action for compensation arising from an unauthorized privacy infringement and a legal privacy right, which safeguards individual confidentiality from illegal government intrusion (Baldwin et al., 2017). As a result, Facebook is liable in tort for breaching an individual’s privacy through the public exposure of private information.
First, Facebook should review its code of conduct and tighten existing loopholes that allow users who misuse the site to escape without punishment. The code of conduct will spell out what one can and cannot publish on the site and what one can and cannot live stream. Facebook should issue specific penalties for various violations on the site. Any user who violates any regulations stipulated by the code of conduct must be banned from the site permanently or temporarily, depending on the seriousness of their violation.
Secondly, Facebook should require every user on their platform to provide a valid government-issued identification document such as a national ID, driving license, or social security number. This measure would prevent users from creating accounts using fake identities. In the past, such accounts have been used to post racist, sexist, or demeaning content on the site, yet such individuals cannot be traced. Allowing only users with verified identities to create accounts would encourage ethical use of Facebook because it would be easier to trace any individual who misuses the site.
References
Baldwin, D. J., Buckley, J. P., & Slaugh, D. R. (2017). Insuring against privacy claims following a data breach.Penn State Law Review, 122, 683. Web.
Newcomb, A. (2017). Cleveland shooting highlights Facebook’s responsibility in policing depraved videos.NBC News. Web.‌