TMA01

Social media and freedom of speech

The following excerpts are from Social media firms that put “profit above principle” on fake news, the Singapore minister says, and Twitter expands hate speech rules to include race, ethnicity.

Social media firms are hampered by their commercial interests when tackling fake news, Singapore’s law minister said, underlining the need for the city-state’s law against online falsehoods, which critics say stifles free speech.

“The tendency has been on the side of the internet platforms to say: hey, it’s free speech, there shouldn’t be any regulation of it,” Shanmugam, who is also Singapore’s home minister, said.

“Let’s be frank when social media platforms argue against it (regulation), it’s really putting profit above principle.”

Twitter has expanded its policy barring hateful speech to include “language that dehumanizes people on the basis of race, ethnicity and national origin”.
In a statement, it added that it “will also continue to surface potentially violative content through proactive detection and automation”.

Last year, Twitter banned speech that dehumanizes others based on religion or caste and updated the rule in March this year to add age, disability, and disease to the list of protected categories.

Should social media companies be held accountable for their user’ posts? Based on the above excerpts, examine the impact of regulating speech on social media and Singapore’s laws that govern against irresponsible speech.

Within the bounds of social media, discuss the benefits and dangers of regulating speech and analyze whether a government can implement a self-regulatory model to promote responsibility among users. Give examples from Singapore and other countries in your essay.

TMA02

Answer the following question.

Fake cash drop

A ‘cash drop’ event where organizers sent fake money into the sky after promising to give away $100,000 is facing growing backlash – with experts claiming the company behind the stunt may have breached trading laws.

Safety Warehouse New Zealand had promoted the highly-publicized event for weeks before opening up Aotea Square in Auckland on Saturday.

More than 1,000 people had gathered at the square at midday – many of whom were from impoverished backgrounds and traveled for hours in the hope of grabbing the cash.

But the crowd turned violent when they realized the notes falling from the sky were coupons for free or discounted products for personal protective equipment.

The company’s owner has claimed staff did give away $100,000 but also printed $40,000 of ‘fake cash’ in addition to the giveaway.

Footage captured from the event shows the mob chasing down organisers as they drove away from the event.

One employee was reportedly taken to hospital after the company’s car had its window smashed and glass went into his eyes.

Consumer NZ chief executive Jon Duffy said the promotion may have broken the law if it was found the company did not actually give the money away.

“If the company didn’t actually give away $100,000 in cash at this event then they could be in breach of the bait advertising provisions of the Fair Trading Act,” he told the NZ Herald.

Appraise the publicity stunt organized by Safety Warehouse New Zealand using the four-part approach to PR. Examine the concepts of sensationalism and deception present in the publicity stunt using an ethical principle of your choice. Based on the ethical principle you have chosen, formulate three guidelines that organizations can follow when designing publicity campaigns