Communication For Developers

Communication Developers

Developers are supposed to adhere to the programmers’ code of ethics, which implies that they have to develop applications that contribute positively to society. Technology holds a lot of power, driven by the responsibility taken by developers to create applications relevant to everyday life, and it must be developed considerately. This cannot be done without referring to rules and regulations laid down by either the company or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers – Computer Science (IEEE-CS). An application is simply software developed and reviewed to ensure it is safe for public use (Florentine, 2017).

Therefore, it is unethical for developers to create addictive communication applications because they consume excessive user time and distract users from their surroundings. Such applications, if not regulated, can be harmful, as users tend to accept them uncritically when within their domain. For example, Facebook, while effective for networking, has been associated with negative outcomes such as bullying, which often goes unpunished (Florentine, 2017). Essentially, developers are not wrong in creating communication tools, but these tools act as weapons depending on how users employ them.

Developers must understand the purpose and societal impact of the applications they develop. Sometimes, developers sign contracts without fully understanding potential harm, only realizing the adverse effects after they spread (Bort, 2016). In conclusion, addictive communication applications should not be developed; instead, their use should be regulated to safeguard users.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical responsibilities of developers in creating communication applications are of paramount importance in today’s digital age. As the proliferation of mobile and web-based communication tools continues, so does the responsibility of developers to engineer their products ethically, ensuring societal wellbeing and safety. Central to this discussion is whether it is ethical to develop addictive communication applications, given their potential to harm users psychologically and socially.

At the core of the ethical debate is the concept of harm and benefit. Developers are increasingly faced with the dilemma of balancing user engagement strategies with ethical considerations. Addiction in communication applications primarily stems from app features designed to maximize user retention—such as infinite scrolling, notifications, and gamification elements—aimed at prolonging user interaction time. While these features may increase user engagement, they also raise significant ethical concerns because they exploit psychological vulnerabilities, leading to unhealthy usage patterns.

The development of addictive apps raises questions about the moral responsibilities of developers. According to Florentine (2017), developers are expected to follow a code of ethics that prioritizes societal contributions and minimizes harm. However, many applications intentionally incorporate features that promote compulsive use, often at the expense of users' mental health. Studies suggest that excessive mobile device usage correlates with increased rates of depression, anxiety, and diminished self-esteem (Wong, 2013). These negative outcomes highlight the potential harm developers may inadvertently cause by prioritizing engagement metrics over user wellbeing.

Furthermore, the societal impacts of addictive communication applications extend beyond individual mental health. Excessive use of social media platforms, such as Facebook or Twitter, can lead to social isolation, decreased face-to-face interactions, and the deterioration of social skills (Caplan, 2007). From a sociological perspective, these platforms alter human communication dynamics and influence social behavior significantly. Developers, therefore, bear ethical responsibility for the societal consequences of their creations.

Moreover, the psychological effects of addictive communication applications are well-documented. Use of such apps can lead to neurological changes in brain function, fostering dependency on digital interactions (Appelbaum, 2014). Excessive exposure to social media can lower self-esteem, promote chronic stress, and even induce depressive symptoms. Additionally, compulsive use may cause social anxiety and introversion, further marginalizing users and impairing their real-world social interactions (Caplan, 2007). These profound mental health repercussions compel developers to consider the ethical implications of including addictive features in their applications.

The application of communication theories aids in understanding how mobile applications influence human interaction. The social penetration theory explains how deeper levels of intimacy develop through communication, but addictive apps often inhibit genuine social bonding by prioritizing superficial interaction (Dix, 2009). Similarly, media richness theory suggests face-to-face communication conveys and interprets nonverbal cues more effectively than mediated communication. Excessive reliance on mobile apps diminishes the richness of social interactions, reducing trust and understanding (Dix, 2009).

Group dynamics and decision-making in social contexts are also affected by mobile device use. People tend to care less about their surroundings while engaged on their phones, which hinders collaborative and effective decision-making in social groups (Caplan, 2007). This behavior can create social dysfunction and impede the development of personal relationships, thus raising concerns about the societal ethics of developing such applications.

Given these considerations, developers face an ethical obligation to regulate the features that promote addiction. While creating innovative communication tools is vital, incorporating ethical safeguards—such as usage limits, well-designed notifications, and features that encourage real-world interactions—can mitigate potential harm. Transparency about app features, clear user consent, and promoting digital literacy are additional avenues to uphold ethical standards (Florentine, 2017). The industry should adopt stricter guidelines and ethical codes that prioritize user health over profit-driven engagement tactics.

In conclusion, developing addictive communication applications without regard for their societal and individual consequences is ethically questionable. Developers must recognize their responsibility to design tools that serve societal good rather than exploiting psychological vulnerabilities. Ethical application development should include measures to prevent addiction, protect mental health, and promote healthy social interactions. As technology continues to evolve, so must the ethical standards guiding its creation, ensuring that societal wellbeing remains central to developer intent.

References

• Appelbaum, P. (2014). Social media’s challenges for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 13(1), 21-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20085
• Bort, J. (2016, November 20). Programmers are having a huge discussion about the unethical and illegal things they’ve been asked to do. The Verge. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com
• Caplan, S. (2007). Relations among loneliness, social anxiety, and problematic Internet use. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10(2), 234–242.
• Dix, A. (2009). Human-computer interaction. In Encyclopedia of database systems. Springer US.
• Florentine, S. (2017, January 11). Should software developers have a code of ethics? Retrieved from https://www.technews.com
• Healy, V. (2010). When it comes to texting, U.S. users are rudeness champs. Chicago Tribune.
• Wong, P. (2013). Confucian social media: An oxymoron? Dao, 12(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s-y