Unit 2 Essay: Social Issues In Technology. Write A One-Page ✓ Solved
Unit 2 Essay: Social Issues in Technology. Write a one-page
Unit 2 Essay: Social Issues in Technology. Write a one-page essay analyzing a social issue in technology using an outline: Introduction with problem statement, thesis question, and thesis statement. Topics: 1) Emergence and Claims Making: define key terms, empirically supported application of the case, and apply it. 2) Legitimacy: define key terms, empirically supported application of the case, and apply it. 3) Renewed Claims Making: define key terms, empirically supported application of the case, and apply it. 4) Development of Alternative Strategies: define key terms, empirically supported application of the case, and apply it. Conclusion: summarize argument and show how evidence supports the thesis question. References: APA format. Provide minimum of 2 pieces of evidence with commentary and analysis in a 1-page essay of at least 4 paragraphs with 8 sentences each. Include a literary device such as characterization and explain how mood is created. Base analysis on Stephen King's story 'The Man Who Loved Flowers.'
Paper For Above Instructions
The rapid social embedding of technology has intensified how people perceive risk, influence, and power in everyday life. This essay argues that technology-driven social issues emerge in contingent ways that shape, and are shaped by, cultural narratives, institutional legitimacy, and strategic responses. By analyzing Stephen King’s The Man Who Loved Flowers through the lens of an outline centered on Emergence and Claims Making, Legitimacy, Renewed Claims Making, and Development of Alternative Strategies, we see how technological systems—surveillance, data practices, and platform governance—produce outcomes that are not merely technical but deeply social. The short story provides a stark mood shift—from springtime romance to violent tragedy—that mirrors how hopeful technocultural narratives can be disrupted by systemic flaws. The core claim is that technology alters the texture of social life by generating new claims, testing the legitimacy of institutions, provoking renewed debates, and demanding innovative strategies to address harms (O’Neil, 2016; Zuboff, 2019). This analysis draws on research on data practices, algorithmic bias, surveillance capitalism, and digital governance to illuminate how the King story’s mood and symbolism illuminate broader tech-related social issues (Noble, 2018; Pasquale, 2015). It proceeds with four substantive sections that map onto Emergence, Legitimacy, Renewed Claims Making, and Alternative Strategies, before concluding with implications for ethical technology design and policy (Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier, 2013; Floridi & Taddeo, 2016).
Emergence and Claims Making: In social-technology contexts, “emergence” refers to issues that arise from the complex interactions of actors, platforms, data practices, and cultural norms, which then generate public claims about risks, fairness, and control. The evidence base for emergent issues in technology includes the rise of data-driven decision making, which often outsizes traditional governance mechanisms and creates new moral panics or justified concerns (Zuboff, 2019). Safiya U. Noble’s Algorithms of Oppression demonstrates how search and recommendation systems embed biases that shape public discourse and marginalize communities, signaling how emergent tech practices create social harms that require claims-making to reroute policy and practice (Noble, 2018). In King’s story, the radio’s stream of alarming headlines competes with a private act of affection, illustrating how public data (media narratives, online discourse, sensor-like signals) can overwhelm personal intent and reframe meaning in real time (King, 1978). This tension mirrors contemporary concerns about how algorithmic feeds and surveillance ecosystems amplify certain outcomes—often at the expense of nuanced human interactions (Zuboff, 2019; Pasquale, 2015). A second line of evidence concerns the way data practices produce public perception shifts that justify interventions or restrictions, sometimes before transparent assessment occurs (O’Neil, 2016). In practice, emergent issues in technology require robust, transparent claims-making processes that balance innovation with accountability (Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier, 2013).
Legitimacy: Legitimacy concerns how social actors judge the acceptability of technological practices, institutions, and governance mechanisms. The Black Box Society argues that opaque algorithmic decision making erodes accountability and public trust by concealing how data are used to influence outcomes (Pasquale, 2015). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism shows how firms monetize behavioral data, which reshapes social norms and political power structures, challenging the legitimacy of consent-based governance models (Zuboff, 2019). In King’s narrative, the city’s romantic mood and the fleeting trust between the man and Norma are undermined by a hidden, decisive mechanism—an instrument used to enact violence—that parallels concerns about hidden algorithmic or platform power that influences real-world decisions and relations (King, 1978). These sources illustrate that legitimacy hinges on transparency, accountability, and meaningful human oversight over technosocial systems (O’Neil, 2016; Floridi & Taddeo, 2016). The Everyday You concept also highlights how personalized media feeds can shift perceived legitimacy by rewarding engagement over accuracy, which has profound implications for social trust and political legitimacy (Turow, 2017). Together, these ideas illuminate how legitimacy is endangered when technology operates with opacity and when power concentrates behind data-centric instruments without appropriate checks (Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier, 2013).
Renewed Claims Making and Development of Alternative Strategies: As new social issues in technology surface, stakeholders repeatedly contest underlying assumptions, seeking renewed claims and revised governance strategies. The literature emphasizes the need for rethinking data governance, transparency, and fairness as data flows expand in society (Kitchin, 2014). Mayer-Schönberger and Cukier’s Big Data classic underscores that reconfiguring governance around data requires new forms of accountability and shared norms to avoid the amplification of harms; Floridi and Taddeo argue for an ethically grounded approach to information, emphasizing responsible design and governance that centers human flourishing (Mayer-Schönberger & Cukier, 2013; Floridi & Taddeo, 2016). In the King story, the tension between private longing and public signals invites renewed scrutiny of how media and data streams shape individual actions and moral judgments, urging strategies that promote human-centered design and robust risk assessment (King, 1978). The Daily You and related scholarship show how personalization and behavioral targeting demand new strategies for accountability, consent, and redress, including more transparent recommender systems and governance mechanisms that empower users (Turow, 2017; O’Neil, 2016). Additional strategies drawn from Big Data research include accountability frameworks, algorithmic impact assessments, and participatory governance that involve diverse stakeholders in decision making to reduce bias and harm (Noble, 2018; Pasquale, 2015). This integrated approach advocates for a layered model of governance combining technical fixes, transparent practices, and social deliberation to address emergent harms (Kitchin, 2014; Zuboff, 2019).
Conclusion and Implications: The King story, with its shift from bucolic spring to violent disaster, serves as a cautionary emblem for contemporary technology ethics: hopeful narratives about innovation can be destabilized by opaque systems and unequal power relations that produce real-world harm. The emergent character of social issues in technology requires ongoing, vigilant claims-making, transparent governance, and adaptive strategies that reflect evolving data practices and platform capabilities. Integrating evidence from sources on algorithmic bias, surveillance capitalism, and data governance demonstrates that addressing these issues demands multi-faceted solutions—ethical design, governance reform, and inclusive policy processes—to restore legitimacy and reduce harm. As technology continues to permeate social life, scholars and practitioners must foreground human values, empower affected communities, and implement robust accountability mechanisms to ensure technology serves the public good rather than narrow interests (Barocas & Nisan, 2016; Floridi & Taddeo, 2016; Pasquale, 2015; Turow, 2017).