Respond To Question 2 And Two Other Topic Areas Below ✓ Solved

Respond to question 2 and any two other topic areas below. A

Respond to question 2 and any two other topic areas below. Address all parts of each selected topic and provide a theoretical rationale. Include a verifiable current event (published within the last 4 years) relevant to at least one response with an in-text citation and a URL. Answer the numbered prompts below in essay form.

1. (a) Do we, as a society, have a special obligation to disabled persons to ensure that they have full Internet access? (b) Is the argument that by providing improved access and services for disabled persons, non-disabled users will benefit as well, a reasonable argument? Consider that it can be dangerous to reason along this line; for example, suppose that non-disabled persons did not benefit from software applications designed for the disabled. (c) Would that be a reason for not investing in software for disabled people? Defend your answer. Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your theoretical rationale in support of your responses.

2. Theismeyer described racist/hate Web sites in this chapter. (a) Should Web sites that promote racist speech be allowed to thrive on the Internet? (b) Has the proliferation of these sites increased the incidence of racism on a global scale? Or is the Internet, as some have suggested, a force that can help to reduce racism? Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your theoretical rationale in support of your responses.

3. The increased use of expert systems (ES) technology in many professional fields has generated some ethical and social concerns. Some ethical controversies surrounding ESs have to do with critical decisions, including life and death decisions; for example, (a) should “expert doctors” be allowed to make decisions that could directly result in the death of, or cause serious harm to a patient? If so, (b) who is ultimately responsible for the ES’s decision? (c) Is the hospital that owns the particular ES responsible? (d) Should the knowledge engineer who designed the ES be held responsible? Or is the ES itself responsible? In answering these questions, you may want to take a look back at Therac-25. Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your theoretical rationale in support of your responses.

4. (a) What obligations does the United States have, as a democratic nation concerned with guaranteeing equal opportunities for all its citizens, to ensure that all its citizens have full access to the Internet? (b) Does the United States also have obligations to developing countries to ensure that they have global access to the Internet? If so, (c) What is the extent of those obligations? If not, (d) Why? For example, (e) Should engineers working in the United States and other developed countries design applications to ensure that people living in remote areas with low connectivity and poor bandwidth have reasonable Internet access? If so, (f) Who should pay for the development of these software applications? If not, (g) Why? Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your theoretical rationale in support of your responses.

Paper For Above Instructions

Selected topics: #2 (mandatory), #3 (expert systems), and #4 (national and global obligations)

Introduction

This paper addresses topic 2 (racist/hate web sites), topic 3 (ethical responsibility for expert systems in critical domains), and topic 4 (U.S. obligations for Internet access domestically and internationally). Each section answers sub-questions, provides a theoretical rationale, and integrates recent evidence about online hate and content moderation. A recent investigation by major news outlets has documented that extremist and hateful content continues to persist on multiple platforms despite moderation efforts, demonstrating the real-world stakes of policies discussed here (Reuters, 2023).

Topic 2 — Racist and hate Web sites

(a) Should Web sites that promote racist speech be allowed to thrive on the Internet? From both ethical and social-policy perspectives, allowing sites that actively promote racism to “thrive” is unacceptable. The liberal defense of free speech (“marketplace of ideas”) argues for broad expressive freedom; however, modern theories of harm (Millian harm principle) and speech-act theory show that racist speech can produce tangible harms—incitement, normalization of hatred, and real-world violence. Content that systematically targets protected groups should therefore be constrained by platform policies and, when it meets legal thresholds (e.g., incitement to violence), by law. Permissive tolerance that allows thriving hubs of racist recruitment conflicts with democratic commitments to equality and public safety (Rawlsian justice as fairness and capability approaches emphasize protecting citizens’ basic opportunities).

(b) Has proliferation of these sites increased global racism, or can the Internet reduce racism? Empirical and theoretical perspectives are mixed. The Internet amplifies both harms and counterforces. On one hand, network effects can accelerate distribution of extremist messages, amplify micro-targeting, and allow transnational coordination (Sunstein’s “echo chambers” and network contagion theory). On the other hand, the Internet also enables rapid counter-speech, cross-cultural contact, and visibility of marginalized voices that can reduce prejudice via intergroup contact theory. Recent reporting shows continued persistence of hate content despite removal efforts, suggesting proliferation contributes to spread and entrenchment of extremist narratives (Reuters, 2023). Therefore, policy must combine content moderation, digital literacy, and platforms’ design choices that reduce algorithmic amplification of hateful content while promoting corrective and educational content.

Topic 3 — Expert systems and responsibility in life-and-death decisions

(a) Should “expert doctors” (i.e., ES tools used by clinicians) be allowed to make decisions that could directly result in death or serious harm? Automated decision-support can improve diagnostic accuracy and consistency, but allowing an ES to autonomously make final life-and-death decisions without human oversight is ethically fraught. The Therac-25 case historically demonstrates catastrophic failures when systems operate without appropriate human checks and rigorous safety engineering (Leveson & Turner, 1993). The correct approach is human-in-the-loop or human-on-the-loop models where clinicians retain final authority, informed by ES outputs, with clear procedures for override and auditability.

(b–d) Who is ultimately responsible for ES decisions? Responsibility should be distributed among multiple actors: the clinician (professional duty and final decision-making authority), the health-care institution (systems of governance, procurement, training, and maintenance), and the manufacturer/knowledge engineer (design, validation, transparency, and safety). Legal frameworks increasingly reflect shared liability: clinicians for misuse, institutions for deployment and oversight failures, and manufacturers for defective design. The ES itself cannot bear moral responsibility; responsibility requires agency and accountability structures. Ethical AI frameworks (principles of explainability, accountability, and fairness) demand traceable decision logs, validation datasets, and regulatory certification (WHO/FDA guidance), so accountability paths are tangible and enforceable.

Topic 4 — Obligations of the United States domestically and internationally

(a) Domestic obligations: As a democratic nation committed to equal opportunity, the United States has a strong moral and pragmatic obligation to ensure broad Internet access. The Internet is now a social determinant of education, employment, health information, and civic participation. From a Rawlsian perspective, guaranteeing fair equality of opportunity supports public investment in digital infrastructure and inclusive policies (subsidies, public broadband, accessibility standards).

(b–d) International obligations: The U.S. has limited but meaningful international obligations. Cosmopolitan theories of justice argue for duties to reduce severe disadvantage globally; pragmatic internationalism emphasizes capacity building and cooperation. The U.S. should support international infrastructure, standards, and capacity building (via public diplomacy, development aid, and multilateral institutions) but must respect recipient sovereignty and local priorities. The extent: prioritize programs that expand connectivity, open access to public-interest content (education, health), and support local skills and governance.

(e–g) Engineering for low-connectivity contexts and funding: Engineers should design applications that are resilient to low bandwidth (progressive enhancement, offline modes, lightweight protocols). This is both ethical—equity by design—and pragmatic—broader markets and resilience. Funding should be a mix: governments (development aid, public broadband projects), multilateral organizations (World Bank, ITU), philanthropic foundations, and private sector partnerships. Subsidy models, open-source development, and standards incentivize low-cost, interoperable solutions. Refusing to design for remote contexts would perpetuate inequality and contravene capability-based justice.

Conclusion

Across the three topics, a common thread emerges: technology is not value-neutral. Policy choices, platform design, and accountability structures determine social outcomes. Hate content should face robust moderation and legal sanctions when it crosses into harm; expert systems require layered responsibility and human oversight; and democratic nations should actively promote digital inclusion domestically and support global connectivity through cooperative funding and appropriate engineering design. These positions rest on theories of justice, harm prevention, and institutional responsibility, and are supported by recent evidence that unchecked online harms can propagate rapidly without thoughtful governance (Reuters, 2023).

References

• Reuters. (2023). Platforms struggle to curb extremist and hateful online content. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/platforms-struggle-curb-extremist-hateful-content-2023-08-10/
• Leveson, N., & Turner, C. S. (1993). An investigation of the Therac-25 accidents. IEEE Computer, 26(7), 18–41. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.237330
• World Bank. (2022). World Development Report: Digital Dividends and the Digital Divide. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/digitaldevelopment
• International Telecommunication Union (ITU). (2023). Measuring digital development: Facts and figures 2023. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/2023/ITU_FactsFigures2023.pdf
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Belknap Press.
• World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200
• European Commission. (2021). Proposal for an AI Act—risk-based approach to regulation. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_1682
• Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
• Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.