Category: Facebook

Introduction

In the current rapid development of social networks, is the Internet safe? Well, Narcissism is a culture that is spreading so speedily especially in the US. It mainly depicts those individuals who only care about themselves; as a result, they experience a constant need for approbation and mostly relate to their peers. This attribute is very risky to the young age group, as social experts have noticed that they tend to lock out the other age groups from their every day activities.

Hence, they miss out on indispensable aspects necessary for their progress into mature adults. This culture is also referred to as Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD); thus, it is a real psychosomatic health predicament. Similarly, individuals with this trait feel self imperative and are not receptive to criticism. In the U.S, the culture of narcissism is promoted by social networks; thus, the dangers of Facebook and other social networks outweigh the benefits involved.

It is thus reinstated that in the modern generation engulfed with technology, Facebook and other social networks are propagating the culture of narcissism. This trait does not only mean seeking interest, as everyone who signs for a social network have the intent of interrelating with others.

Consequently, these individuals are not capable to form long-term and healthy affairs; thus they seek refuge in Internet sites. Experts have gone to the extent of researching on how individuals express their personality traits in Facebook and other social network sites. It is noteworthy that this move has been triggered by the implausible escalation in the social networking sites.

In these sites especially Facebook, individuals have a ‘list of friends’ and ‘posts on walls’ factors that illuminate a relationship with the customs of narcissism. Similarly, these individuals post pictures on their profiles that are alluring and self endorsing; some even go to the extent of using snapshots. Basing on this fact, it is obvious that these social networks promote the customs of narcissism in the contemporary society (Twenge & Campbell110).

Posting pictures with such features and characteristics evidently portrays the actuality that these individuals are advertising themselves. It is a fact that they are seeking attention from their peers, as they expect them to mention on these photos and most importantly, these should be positive comments thus making them contented. Indeed, the profile pages of narcissists have three distinctive characteristics which include the magnitude of social contact; this means that they normally have many friends on their list.

The other characteristic is that their main profile pictures are always self upholding, meaning that they are always seeking the attention of their peers. The last significant characteristic is that these individuals are usually attractive. It is acceptable that human beings are never perfect in whatever they do, but for narcissists, this is not true as they try to be ideal in their advertising acts (Fischer 204).

Most importantly, these individuals are never concerned with the feelings of their respondents as long as it suits them. They are so mean to the extent that they will delete friends who keep on criticizing them.

Consequently, they believe it is their right to draw all the attention and in the process gain appreciation in an outstanding manner. Facebook and other social networks have greatly influenced the youth into adapting the narcissism culture. It is evident in some social experts’ arguments that these social networks have not created people with this trait, but it has attracted them.

They affirm that in the modern society most youth already has the narcissism culture in them; thus these sites only give them a platform to express themselves and reach an augmented audience. Basing on this fact, it is obvious that narcissists are using these sites in the same manner they use their other relationships, which is for self advertising purposes with preference of quantity over quality.

Narcissists on Facebook seem to have more friends on their lists who share the same culture as them. This is however not portrayed in their actual life. Thus, it is a fact that the culture of narcissism is promoted by Facebook and other social networks because it seems ninety percent of the youth manage their relationships through these sites (Alcorn 89).

It is obvious that the dangers of Facebook outweigh their benefits; thus access to this site should be restricted to avoid further damaging effects to the users. The most conspicuous aspect that is worrying the parents and educators is racism and ethnicity. Social experts have noticed that many racism and ethnicity hate groups are common in Facebook, as a result; the users are exposed to the insensitivity of these aspects during their online conversations.

It is thus alarming when young people get exposed to the online interracial interaction. Indeed, some individuals who had the assumption that racism does not exist may go online and post insensitive comments about the issue. This might trigger conflict and hate speech among the users a fact that might lead to the sour relationships between different races in institutions or even countries (Twenge & Keith 78).

It is noteworthy that people who join Facebook and other social networks have different motives. There are those who have the intention of conducting criminal activities. Recent news indicate that involve crimes were committed with the help of such social networks.

For example, there was an incident in the news that revealed how a man lured a teenage female through Facebook and ended up raping her and finally killing her. Such cases can be avoided by limiting the time young people spend on Facebook. Additionally, it is advisable for users of such sites to ensure they only add people they personally know to their friend list (Fischer 205).

Research has revealed that addiction to Facebook and other social network sites results in diminished productivity at work. This occurs when majority of employees spend significant proportions of office hours in the social networks.

As a result, their concentration at work is affected leading to diminished quality of work. It is advisable that employees minimize or avoid these sites during working hours. On the same aspect, it is noticed that such sites can compromise security and privacy concerns of institutions. This is because employees can leak company trade secrets to competitors through such communication channels.

As a result, the benefiting company might experience large productivity because of reduced competition. This is at the expense of the related company that might even face closure due to poor performance and losses. Such situations result in job loss since these companies might lay off some employees or even shut down as earlier stated. This is a clear indication that dangers of Facebook and other network sites outweigh their benefits (Rettberg 72).

It is noteworthy that Facebook is recently being used by fraudsters to steal personal information of the users. As evident most Facebook applications and advertisements request access into the users profile, friends or photos. This is dangerous as a malicious application can be used to gather detailed information about a user to enable them steal their identity.

This stolen identity can be used to conduct fraud on either friends or business partners. As a result, the reputation of the user will be severely dented as it will be difficult to accept their innocence basing on the accurate personal information used to conduct the fraud.

On the other hand, if the user conducts business via Facebook, the imposers can use this information to establish a company that resembles the victim’s. This company will then be used as a tool to damage the reputation of the user’s company. This is a strategy that can be employed by a rival firm that has the intent of dominating the market (Papacharissi134).

Conclusion

The culture of narcissism is common in the current generation because the available social networks seem to propel it as it gives individuals with such trends the opportunity to undertake their activities.

The only approach to stop extension of this culture is to fashion awareness using the same social networks as conveyors. It is a fact that the dangers of using Facebook and other social networks have outweighed the benefits associated with the same. It is thus advisable that different mechanisms are established regulate the use and content of such sites.

Works Cited

Alcorn, Marshall. Narcissism and the Literary Libido: Rhetoric, Text, and Subjectivity. New York, NY: New York University Press, 1997. Print.

Fischer, Claude. Made in America: a social history of American culture and character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print.

Papacharissi, Zizi. A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2010. Print.

Twenge, Jean. & Campbell, Keith. The narcissism epidemic: living in the age of entitlement. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2009. Print.

Rettberg, Jill. Blogging. Massachusetts, MA: Polity press, 2008. Print.

Facebook is a social media resource that millions of people use worldwide for various purposes. As with all such global phenomena, traditional news sources often focus on the cases of misuse. One such case is a shooting perpetrated by Steve Stephens in Cleveland, which he streamed using Facebook’s services. That case, among others, spurs debates on whether Facebook should create more prompt and punitive systems to purge violent content.

The discourse in the media is that people must not see the violent content under the guise of “safety.” Aiken explains how seeing violent content can desensitize and disinhibit people and thus lead to them perpetuating the violence they see (1). However, the researchers that study online disinhibition make a point that it is situated firmly online, as the factors that drive people to behave a certain way on the Internet are simply not present in the real world (Wu, 2).

The argument that the media makes is unscientific and primarily based on emotions and profit. I am deeply troubled by the ubiquitous drive to ban everything, create safeguards, and police the entire Internet. Not only is it unethical and authoritarian, but it also creates the opposite result. Hobbs and Roberts describe a sort of a Streisand effect, where actively suppressing content incentivizes users to seek it out and evade the systems that block access (3). For example, the Christchurch massacre was actively suppressed by social media, which only lead to it becoming a worldwide viral sensation.

The media that report on violence in such a manner do not have the best solutions in mind. This phenomenon can be explained as a particular case of moral panic (Goode, 4). There is nothing new about deviant behavior, vicariousness, and morbid curiosity, yet the media reports on it as if it were an unprecedented epidemic of violence. A similar type of panic is centered around violent video games, and the resemblance is apparent. Markey and Ferguson describe how the researchers, legislators, and media outlets are reacting disproportionately strongly to a relatively insignificant problem and completely unrelated factors (5).

Many publications called for a more sophisticated system of removing violent content following the shooting. Such sentiments as “Facebook must” and “Facebook’s responsibility” were thrown around by major news sources. Newcomb wrote that live video streaming is an essential tool for democracy to hold the authorities accountable (6). The article refers to the recordings of police shootings, where the victims were innocent African American civilians. That is a valid point, but the political salience of the murder does not change the fact that thousands of people will see a person getting shot to death. It reveals a confounding double standard, where politically favorable murders are okay to show to the public, but other murders should be instantly purged.

If Facebook has a moral obligation to save the victims of violent crime or emotional turmoil, it is not clear how instantaneous suppression of content and banning people from its platform fulfills that obligation. Newcomb explains how Facebook gave suicidal streamers access to helplines and resources that might help them in times of crisis (6). That is a more constructive approach, where instead of instant censorship, people are given more information. According to Aiken, Stephens explained his motives during the live recordings of the shooting (1). Hearing out disturbed and murderous individuals can unveil elusive social problems that need to be solved. Helping people with mental issues is just as important as exposing police shootings.

With that in mind, I believe that Facebook has, if not an obligation, then at least the means to help its users. Firstly, giving streamers the resources to help themselves in times of crisis can be instrumental in suicide prevention. Secondly, urging people to alert the authorities in case of a violent crime being broadcast can help improve police response. Thirdly, not trying to shut down questionable content can help it remain relatively obscure. It can also help expose more underlying problems in society, which is ultimately a worthy cause.

Even if, despite the evidence to the contrary, we assume that Facebook must continue to police its platform, there are ways to improve these processes and make them more ethical and user-friendly. Myers West provides numerous user reports that shed light on how little transparency and human contact there is in content policing (7). Users often find their content or accounts removed erroneously or maliciously, and they cannot find an actual human to explain the reasons for the removal. Social media platforms automate these systems, which leads to many errors and complicated appeal processes. Increasing personalization and peer-reviewed human oversight can improve content policing and lower the degree of error or bias.

Another problem is the outsourcing of content moderation abroad with little regard to actual workers. The moderators are often contracted from developing nations and given quotas for reviewing unacceptable content (Dwoskin, 8). What gets removed is often up to them, not actual Facebook employees. The content moderators work under severely restrictive NDAs that prohibit them from criticizing and exposing the harmful workplace practices (Newton, 9). Severely restructuring their contracts and improving their workplace conditions could be an important step towards creating a more ethical platform.

In addition to a vast number of content moderators, Facebook has laid plans to create an Oversight Board. This Board will consist of eleven to forty members, and it will review appeals to policy decisions, as well as make recommendations on what could be improved (Constine, 10). The Oversight Board is primarily tasked to remedy the problem of automated removals and lack of human interaction that Myers West described (7). However, the Board can also act as a deflection for accusations of malpractice and unethical behavior. Another criticism is that the Board’s decisions are not actually binding, and the executives are free to ignore them.

Contrary to the discourse in the media, Facebook does not need more safeguards for its content. If the existing practices are any indication, the implementation of these new safeguards can further limit the users’ freedom of expression. According to Constine, Facebook has already been pressured by political parties to remove ideologically incompatible content, despite it not being violent, illegal, or against Facebook’s terms of service (10).

More formal mechanisms to remove content could only harm the platform. The already-mentioned automated appeals system and lack of human contact will prevent users from appealing these new removals and suspensions. It is not guaranteed that the nascent Oversight Board is going to fix these problems. Its performance should be evaluated by the public before any new tools for censorship are introduced.

Facebook is a major social network that employs and outsources tens of thousands. More than a billion people visit the platform daily and post an immeasurable wealth of content. It is only natural that some of the content features violence. That said, it is not yet clear whether the content is actually harmful to regular users. The media is prone to moral panics, but the decision-makers and scholars should keep a level head when tackling such sensitive issues. There are several ways to improve how Facebook handles violence, but these improvements clearly should not entail more censorship.

Sources

1. Aiken, M. 2017. Facebook must stop live-streaming murder from becoming the new normal. Web.
2. Wu, S. 2017. Examining the antecedents of online disinhibition. Information Technology & People, 30(1), p. 189–209.
3. Hobbs, W. R. 2018. How sudden censorship can increase access to information. American Political Science Review, 112(03), p. 621–636.
4. Goode, E. 2017. Moral Panic. In: C. J. Schreck (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Juvenile Delinquency and Justice (pp. 1–3). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
5. Markey, P. M. 2017. Teaching us to fear: The violent video game moral panic and the politics of game research. American Journal of Play, 10(1), p. 99-115.
6. Newcomb, A. 2017. Cleveland shooting highlights Facebook’s responsibility in policing depraved videos. Web.
7. Myers West, S. 2018. Censored, suspended, shadowbanned: User interpretations of content moderation on social media platforms. New Media & Society, 20(11), p. 4366-4383.
8. Dwoskin, E. 2019. Content moderators at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter see the worst of the web — and suffer silently. Web.
9. Newton, C. 2019. The secret lives of Facebook moderators in America. Web.
10. Constine, J. 2019. Facebook’s new policy Supreme Court could override Zuckerberg. Web.

If Mark Zuckerberg had not founded Facebook, the political situation in the United States and abroad would have been quite different in recent years. Thus, for fifteen years, Facebook, like other social media, has the power to affect and control people’s opinions. What started as an online platform to connect Harvard University students is one of the most influential media tools today that changes political and business worlds because of its exponential growth and wide popularity among 2.45 billion users.

What makes Facebook so powerful? All these users voluntarily provide their data to be available online or for use in Facebook’s algorithms, and these data are utilized for spreading different types of content, including political ones, and for targeted advertising. This aspect makes users vulnerable as their sensitive data cannot be viewed as fully protected. The governmental regulation of social media content is an important step toward creating a safe digital landscape despite opposing views that freedom of speech can be affected in this case.

Facebook and other social networks need to be held accountable for their potential contribution to developing political tensions and conflicts that occurred in social media posts. The most obvious reason is that Facebook today is an easy but powerful medium to spread any opinion or view, including hate messages and provocation under the veil of freedom of speech. First of all, tools for targeting need to be regulated because today any individual can apply Facebook’s advanced algorithms for making sensitive personal data on users’ activities become monetizable information. Nobody is protected.

Political opinion shapers utilizing Facebook not only post their views, but they also have an opportunity to reach any user they want using sensitive data applied to Facebook’s algorithms. The impact can be extremely intense, and social media has become a perfect tool for hyper-targeted propaganda of different ideas. That is why the public should promote the idea of adopting regulations and censorship for Facebook to protect users from the manipulation of information.

Government regulations are needed to defend 2.45 billion users of Facebook, but this means that just a simple rule cannot work in this case. A modern virtual landscape is very complex, and the determination of responsible actors to formulate effective private policies and regulations requires much time. At the current stage, it is possible to state that the solutions can be associated with developing the idea of Facebook’s responsibility for regulating and censoring political content as well as the idea of self-censoring.

Furthermore, Facebook and other social networks as collectors of personal information should also be accountable for using gathered sensitive data, but the current legal framework adopted in the United States can be discussed as not effective enough to control this aspect. However, the idea of self-censoring that can successfully work in this context is based on the view that users making posts should be responsible for the information they spread, and this issue also needs to be regulated. The only problem is that political leaders and other authorities are expected to demonstrate the example of such responsible behavior to make the rule work.

Although the necessity of regulations to control the world of social media is actively discussed in society and proponents have persuasive arguments to promote this initiative, opponents refer to Americans’ right to expressing their ideas freely. In this context, it is important to distinguish between freedom of speech and the expression of a personal view and hate messages or propaganda that affect other people.

How can Facebook users recognize a border, which should not be crossed? A clear definition of free speech is required, and it is the area of the government’s responsibility to provide the public with a distinct notion that can be used to differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate expressions. Thus, the idea of self-censorship in a virtual environment should be supported by this definition of freedom of speech and suitable expressions. Moreover, until users can reject posting inappropriate material referring to hackers’ attacks, the proposed regulations will not work effectively, and this point should also be addressed when revising the related legal framework.

Today, people use Facebook and other social media not only for sharing their views but also for completing a variety of other goals, imposing their opinions on the audience, and influencing their choices. In this context, a user’s choice cannot be viewed as free anymore, and censorship and restrictions are required to protect individuals who are rather vulnerable in a modern virtual environment. The first step is the formulation of the free speech definition, and the second step is the development of effective regulations to make users of Facebook and its executives accountable for the information they share. In this case, it will be possible to protect users from violating their basic rights.

Introduction

Social movements have characterized most social, political, religious, and cultural struggles in the world history. It is already ten years into the 21^st century but it is clear that technology, as a cultural tool, is at the epicenter of an emerging sociocultural struggle in which Facebook is a major player. Facebook tries to persuade users of its vision for technology.

The study of social movements, their ideology and function, should be approached by comprehending how their public pedagogy is persuasive (Melucci, 2006). This paper attempts to examine some of the cases in the recent past where social sites, and in specific, Facebook, have been instrumental in social movements.

The paper traces the origin of the phenomenon of social movements and social media, provides evidence for the recent influence, and concludes by recapping some of the key discussions in the body of the paper in an effort to support the thesis stated below.

Thesis

In the last several months, there has been a heated debate in the last couple of months concerning blogging, theories, and hype on the responsibility of the Internet in today’s social movements. The social media includes Internet applications such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. All these have enabled the formation and exchange of user-related content.

In deed, the Internet has been making the world a much smaller place in which democracy and the market are sure to thrive. The latest testimony to these propositions has been the Occupy Wall Street protests in the late September and the Arab movements early this year.

This paper holds that social media, and in particular facebook played a pivotal role in fuelling these protests. Facebook allowed people to experience what others were feeling through a simple post.

Background

Intuitive studies in the milieu of social movements can be dated back in the 1950. Initially these movements were visualized as historical movements. They were perceived as attempts to develop or demolish institutions in the society through the art of rhetoric.

It is no surprise that today; the two subjects are still being studied under one roof. Scholars in the field of communication usually researched and analyzed social movements from a rhetorical paradigm based their arguments on concepts of meaning and discourse (Altinkson, 2010).

On the other hand, social scientists studied the topic from an empirical perspective based on the effects and measurement. In the later years of the research on social movements, the focus shifted to the examination of how the new social movements slough to establish political identity instead of creating or demolishing social institutions.

This was achieved through the use of images and visual rhetoric. Towards the end of the 20^th century, communication scholars started to include the phenomenon of network in their research on new social movements (Touraine, 2001).

Initial research on the phenomenon of social movements identified two types of movements, as well as the various chronological stages for the development of the movements. The two types of movements found in the society are pro-movements and anti-movements. Pro-movements are meant to create or defend institutions while anti-movements are aimed at removing or demolishing institutions.

In the inception phase, the movement is mainly unknown and unseen by the general public. At this stage, the aggressor rhetoricians emerge to take the vanguard, creating arguments for or against particular institutions in society (Hardt & Negri, 2004).

In the stage of rhetorical crisis, defendants of the status quo take notice of the growing arguments made by the aggressor rhetoricians. The defendants begin to mobilize their resources and arguments. At this point, an event takes place, which triggers a public and visible clash between the groups. This, definitely, disturbs the equilibrium existing between the two groups existing in the minds of the general public.

This clash marks the end since the movement enters into the phase of consummation. At this stage, the aggressor rhetoricians leave their work. They feel they have succeeded in their cause, they have been defeated, or there is a new cause that they should attend (Downing, 2001).

Social scientists began to concentrate on collective behavior in social movements with regard to stages that rise as a result of different political and social factors. The researches demonstrated that social movements are marked by social strain, growth, and spread of beliefs, triggers for localized social action, mass mobilization, and social control (Touraine, 2001).

The social movements or collective action, as early researches called them, start with the strain experienced by an initial group of social actors as they come to realize that something is wrong with society (Schock, 2005). Those beliefs sprout outward beyond the original group. As the other phases unfold, the participants’ collective behavior increases in momentum.

The early years of research on social movements saw rhetoricians focusing mainly on the stages of historical movements. The works shifted focus to discourse and exigencies in the social environment resulting to the adoption of concepts of rhetoric, image, and identity by researches.

However, with the origin of the new social movements, the concept has come to describe contemporary social movements aimed at shaping political identities or challenge social roles and norms. This is achieved through the use of radical performance, image politics, and interactive technology (Castells, 2006). The last category forms the bulk of this research.

Evidence

The use of interactive technology in social movements has made such organizations smaller, non-hierarchical, and more decentralized compared to their predecessors. The first case to be considered in this research in order to substantiate this claim by modern researches in social movements is the Arab movements. It is well known that social movements are as a result of the union of social, economic, cultural, and political factors.

This held true to the case of the Arab Spring movements. Years of government corruption, bourgeoisie economic self-interest, arrogance of the authority, as well as milestone economic inequalities, were the main reasons as to why these social movements arose (Kaldor, 2003).

In Egypt, Facebook is the second most popular site. By the time of the protests, Egypt had five million Facebook accounts. Protesters used Facebook to organize, schedule and ”peercast” protests. The latter refers to the sharing of mobile pictures and videos with peers. The pictures captured disseminated through Facebook offered an intuitive view into the protests than what many people could seen on TVs.

This demonstrated a people with a common cause willing to transform their country (Hann & Dunn, 2006). The Arab Spring Movement supports the idea that the civil society is becoming a truly global phenomenon. In deed, some scholars like Kaldor argue that such types of movements are becoming more important than domestic, civil society (Kaldor, 2003).

The protesters are using Facebook to organize their schedules. The site makes it possible for protesters to communicate with one another, as well as aids in recruiting new participants (Schock, 2005). The site also comes in handy in updates concerning change of locations, strategies, or latent dangers.

Photos and videos of police’s response to protesters are shared and disseminated instantaneously before the other forms of media can do so. This concept of social movements is best explained by Tarry when the scholar posits that such movements begin as local networks (Tarrow, 2005).

However, they spread through the diffusion of contention and ultimately either disappear or scale up to regional and national levels. In the case of Wall Street protests, the movement is gaining momentum in other cities, courtesy of social networking propagated by Facebook.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the above-discussed case studies show a rising trend amongst protesters to underscore other forms of media in support of user-generated media to disseminate news.

Owing to the fact that recent social movements hit the Internet via sites such as Facebook long before the local news, the conventional media channels may be headed to a future of irrelevance and uncertainty if they fail to recognize to see the stories before can be ignored.

References

Altinkson, J., 2010, Alternative media and politics of resistance: a communication perspective. New York: Peter Lang Inc.

Castells, M., 2006, The rise of the Network Society, the Information Age: economy, society and culture, Vol. I. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell

Downing J., 2001, Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements. London: SAGE Publishers.

Hann, C., & Dunn, E., 2006, Civil society: Challenging Western models. London: Routledge.

Hardt, M., & Negri, A., 2004, Multitude: War and democracy in the Age of Empire. New York: Penguin Press.

Kaldor, M., 2003, “Global civil society,” International Affairs, 79: 583-93.

Melucci, A., 2006, Challenging codes: Collective action in the Information Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schock, K., 2005, Unarmed insurrections: people power movements in non- democracies. Minnesota: Minnesota Press.

Tarrow, S., 2005, The new transnational activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Touraine, A., 2001, The voice and the eye: An analysis of social movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Introduction

Bullying poses a severe threat to the health and well-being of the child, and therefore attention to the incidents and their solution is necessary. Teachers play a crucial role in managing student bullying, as they can take action to investigate cases and prevent them (De Luca et al., 2019). At the same time, educators should not interfere in the private life of students and act only within the framework of established laws and procedures. The purpose of the current paper is to describe the actions teacher should take in response to cyberbullying through Facebook at a school in P.176X Truman High School, New York. The report also explores possible First Amendment arguments, which abusers can use in their defense, and suggests responses to them. Despite the First Amendment providing freedom of speech, bullying does not fall under the protection and is prohibited.

Response to Bullying

New York has passed a number of anti-bullying laws and regulations. They define bullying as committing abuse, intimidation, or threats to create a hostile environment, which harms students’ health, violates their educational performance, causes fear, or carries the risk of physical and mental damage (“New York anti-bullying,” 2021). Cyberbullying is the same actions performed through electronic communication, such as Facebook (“New York anti-bullying,” 2021). These laws require schools to appoint employees responsible for accepting statements about bullying, conducting investigations and reporting cases.

The teacher’s actions in P.176X are determined by the school’s rules and by the Department of Education (DOE), which replaced the Board of Education. According to the school handbook, the administration is guided by DOE policy and recognizes bullying as prohibited (Guerriero et al., 2022). The New York City DOE (n.d.), in turn, describes the necessary steps for teachers:

1. After receiving a notification about bullying, the staff member reports to the principal and the parents of the students and begins a case investigation.
2. The teacher speaks separately to students involved in the incident for details and asks about possible evidence or witnesses.
3. The educator asks the students and witnesses involved to prepare written statements.
4. School staff review the bullying case and considers all gathered evidence and influence factors.
5. A case report is generated and sent to the parents.
6. Staff provides support to the victim, the offender, and, if necessary, witnesses to the incident, for example, through referral to a social worker, counselor, or other appropriate actions (The New York City DOE, 2021).

Considering First Amendment Arguments

One might consider that anti-bullying laws and the right to free speech are conflicting. For example, the considered case with the message on Facebook occurred outside the school. The accused student can argue that they did not lead to the disruption of school activities (Hudson, 2021). However, the student’s behavior refers to the actions the school must limit, and the investigation already breaks the usual school agenda (Hudson, 2021). Another potential argument of the student is the blurring definition of cyberbullying and the difficulty in proving that their message is prohibited (Hudson & DeVerter, 2018). However, The New York City DOE (2021) gives a specific list of actions that can be considered bullying. Thus, the incident poses a threat to the student and requires investigation, which violates the school order. However, in the inquiry, it is necessary to determine whether the action falls under the category of bullying.

Conclusion

Thus, bullying in any form is prohibited in educational institutions, and upon notification of incidents, staff will start an investigation. It includes several steps implying communicating with the students and collecting evidence for subsequent support. In New York, the process is regulated by state laws, DOE, and school rules. A ban on bullying can challenge the First Amendment and the right to free speech. However, given the harm of bullying, its prohibition is justified and necessary.

References

De Luca, L., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2019). The teacher’s role in preventing bullying.Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1-9. Web.

Guerriero, A., Faccilonga, E., Gibson, Y., Olivo, A., & Sabatello, A. (2022). P176X staff handbook. 2022-2023 school year. P176X School Purblishing.

Hudson, D. L. Jr. (2021). Federal judge rejects First Amendment challenge in school bullying incident.The Free Speech Center. Web.

Hudson, D. L. Jr., & DeVerter, R. (2018). Online speech. Freedom Forum Institute. Web.

New York anti-bullying laws & policies. (2021). Stopbullying.org. Web.

The New York City Department of Education. (2021). Regulation of the Chancellor A-832: Student-to-student discrimination, harassment, intimidation and/or bullying. Web.

The New York City Department of Education. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions: Student-to-student discrimination, sexual and other harassment, intimidation, bullying.Web.

The Bible serves as the example of various cases, which can be used by social workers to develop their diversity awareness competences. For example, the presentation of Egypt in the Book of Exodus shows the oppressed structure. “The Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites, and made their lives bitter with hard service in mortar and brick and in every kind of field labor” (Exodus 1:13-15). In this case, the Jews are oppressed because of their nationality, while it makes society ruthless and harshly punitive. The cultural differences between the Israeli and Egyptians shaped their experiences, where the former were slaves, and the latter were masters.

Another example refers to the domination of the Roman Empire that also oppressed the Jews. “Herod [Antipas] beheads John the Baptist who has been critical of Herod’s personal morality and political alliances” (Matthew 14:1-12). Such violence was caused by the differences in personal identity and political views, which led to structural oppression. Instead of paying attention to the views of people, the king acted as a powerful and murderous leader, who is not able to recognize diversity (Nelson, 2018). Accordingly, the mentioned murder was another sign of Jews’ discrimination that influenced their experiences.

Today, the position of African-Americans in the US is an example of structural marginalization, even though some steps were conducted by the government to address this. As the ethnicity that was oppressed for many years, African-Americans still suffer from stigma, bullying, and discrimination. The active reaction from the public was caused by the death of George Floyd, who was killed by the police officer (Dixon & Dundes, 2020). This example revealed many other similar cases when people were murdered only because of perceived suspicion. The protests across the US showed that the current social structure is imperfect as it still contains mistreatment and prejudices towards African-Americans.

The alienation of Native Americans that was extensively conducted in the 20th century resulted in social discrimination, racial abuse, and poor quality life in general. Today, Native Americans still have reservations, they are less educated, and more likely to lack the access to health care services. This nation was intentionally distinguished from others in the US, their children were educated in boarding schools, and their resources were exploited. These experiences led to unemployment, alcohol and drug abuse, as well as violence in communities (Gurley, 2016). The native languages and traditions of tribes become extinct.

References

Dixon, P. J., & Dundes, L. (2020). Exceptional injustice: Facebook as a reflection of race-and gender-based narratives following the death of George Floyd. Social Sciences, 9(12), 231-255.

Gurley, L. (2016). Who’s afraid of rural poverty? The story behind America’s invisible poor. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 75(3), 589-604.

Nelson, M. (2018). The liberating Christ: From the Gospel of Matthew to modern day liberation. Obsculta, 11(1), 113-128.

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.‌

Facebook has become a part of the daily lives of most people these days. That is because the technological marvel has allowed people to connect with each other and communicate in ways and means that seemed to only be a part of sci-fi movies 20 years ago.

These days, if one does not have a Facebook account, it is almost as if that person does not really exist. Facebook has become the bonding factor amongst family and friends these days, allowing us to stay in touch with each other even when we are separated by time and distance. This is supported by the research of Jay Leon (2011) in his article”The Advantages Of Having Your Own Facebook Account” where he explains that :

If you use Facebook, you are never really out of touch with people you know. Once you add a person as a friend on your account, you will know whenever there are updates, uploaded photos and other new information on his or her profile — unless your friend blocks you from seeing updates — through your news feed. You can contact one another anytime from any place in the world where you have access to the internet.

With over 5 million registered and active users on the social networking site Facebook’s official statistics page (20110 indicates that the site is fast proving to be the best tool for organizing activities and keeping in touch with each other be it in a personal, educational, or professional basis.

Educational institutions have also come around to realizing the advantages that having a Facebook account presents to their offices and student body. Take for example the use of Facebook Groups in order to disseminate information to relevant student participants whenever an activity arises.

Kate Wadas (2008) studied the possible reasons as to why a student organization or educational institution should have a Facebook account in her article “The Challenges and Advantages of Facebook”. It is her opinion that Facebook works best for these parties because:

Students can log-on at a time which is convenient for them and see what is new with the student organization, as opposed to filling their inboxes with multiple emails a day about announcements or schedule changes. Facebook can also be used to advertise events and other involvement opportunities.

Businesses have also learned to take advantage of the high traffic volume, the Facebook Statistics page (2011) indicates that the site users have at least 900 million objects in the form of group pages, communities, and events pages, to interact amongst themselves via their “friends list”. Within these pages are paid targeted advertisements related directly to the topic being discussed on the page and recommendations being offered as points of interest and discussion in a discreet manner by the advertisers themselves.

These paid advertisements have the advantage of clearly picking up on the interests of the user and offering them products and services that they will be sure to take an interest in and possibly, actually click on and use. When Kate Wadas (2008) first looked into the advantages of using Facebook as an advertising tool, she found the following information regarding the successful of Facebook advertising by the University of Maryland. To quote:

… One example of a successful advertisement was at the University of Maryland when the Community Service-Learning office recently had success posting advertisements for its spring break service trip applications and found that several students had heard about the opportunity through the Facebook announcements. These advertisements seem to be more cost efficient and effective than a traditional student newspaper ad since students log-on multiple times a day to check their Facebook accounts.

Students, businesses, and regular Joe’s will continue to find new ways and means to use Facebook as a positive communication tool. As such, advertisers will also continue to develop advertising schemes that will prove to be beneficial to both the advertisers and Facebook users in the long run. This is because the advertisers will be able to continuously study the habits of their users and therefore offer relevant services and information to their target audiences.

Facebook is not without its problems though. It is true that there are disadvantages to certain types of interactions on the social media network but these seem to be overshadowed by the positive and advantageous side of having and actually using a Facebook account.

The concern by professionals across the board regarding these negative aspects are within reason and because the company that runs the website has continuously worked towards improving the interactive experience on an ever heightening platform of safety, it is safe to say that Facebook will be ever evolving and developing their positive aspects as a social media tool.

Just like all previous technological advancements, there will be hiccups along the road for this social media giant, but these will not be so threatening that the system will fail and Facebook deemed to be a negative part of everyday life. On the contrary, these hiccups will show us that Facebook is truly an extension of our everyday, real-time lives. Facebook, as a social networking, advertising, information dissemination tool, is here to stay. It will continue to positively affect our daily interactions and improve our social relationships.

Just everything that have become a positive part of our daily lives from the past era, there will always be naysayers who will trumpet Facebook disadvantages, but they will never be loud enough to dispel the positive impact that Facebook has had on the lives of people in the 21st century.

References

“Facebook: Statistics”. facebook.com. facebook, 2011. Web.

Leon, Jay. ” The Advantages Of Having Your Own Facebook Account”. eHow. 2011. Web.

Wadas, Kate. “The Challenges and Advantages of Facebook”. Office of Information Technology: Project NETHICS. 2008. Web.

Introduction

Facebook is one of the most important current forms of Information Technology. Facebook is a social network that was invented in 2004 by a Harvard student called Mark Zuckerberg. The membership expanded to other colleges such as Boston, Ivy League, Stanford University, and many others before extending to the rest of people across the world.

Before using the site, it is mandatory for the users to register by creating their personal profiles and adding other users as friends. Through the network, members are able to exchange messages and update themselves on the current issues that occur around the world. Furthermore, this site enables the users to form groups of similar interests.

According to Mary et al. (2010), it is estimated that by July 2011, approximately 800 million people had been using Facebook. This technology has also raised many concerns ranging from social, cultural, ethical, and legal issues pertaining to its use. Therefore, it is important to analyze how Facebook has affected the lives of people in terms of social, cultural, ethical issues being neglected and the legal implications that this kind of media has brought.

Factors motivating use of Facebook

According to Ashwini (2011), Facebook as a social network site has gained enormous amount of popularity as people use the avenue to link and connect with one another (243).

He argues that the use of Facebook is motivated by two factors namely the need to belong to a certain group and the need of self-presentation. The need to belong is motivated by cultural and demographic factors such as people, especially the youth who want to be recognized and belong somewhere. On the other hand, the need for self-presentation is contributed by factors such as shyness, self-esteem and self worth.

Social impacts

Invention of Facebook has impact on the social lives and activities of many people around the globe. The availability and accessibility of Facebook on the mobile phones have aggravated the effect as almost every person can access the internet and be able to chat and interact with his/her friends on the site.

This has allowed people to continuously keep in touch with their acquaintances and relatives in different locations, bridging the social gap of interaction. For instance, many people send messages and share their stories and new events on Facebook, hence, promoting close interactions.

The site has also acted as a unifying factor for people with common interests/or beliefs. This has been achieved through the possibility of making or forming up groups on Facebook and networking among the group. Furthermore, the site has also assisted to a greater extent in re-uniting family members, friends and relatives.

A good example of how Facebook has helped in re-uniting people was the case of Watson John with his daughter who was lost for 20 years (Gardner, 2010, p. 4). Upon updating his profile, John Watson was able to link with his daughter making the two reconnect. This, therefore, shows how Facebook has helped to promote unity and friendship among people across the globe.

Criticism use of Facebook

Even though Facebook has positive impacts, it has also been accused of being the center of problems that continue to befall to people, as it is the center of relationships’ breakup and other antisocial behaviors. Facebook as a tool of connection has resulted in antisocial behaviors as people are not able to communicate directly with each other.

This makes people stay on their computers most of the time making them unable to engage in direct conversation. This contributes to antisocial behaviors (Stahl, 2011, p. 254). Furthermore, Facebook has also contributed to break up of many relationships especially through falsehoods and rumors, hence, increasing the rate of infidelities and divorce among families.

Crime has also been perpetrated through Facebook as people dupe others on different issues such as employment opportunities and asking money for the same. Those people who have not been cautious have lost huge sums of money for jobs and business deals that do not exist.

Facebook as a tool of hiring

According to Mary et al. 2010), Facebook is the fastest growing international social network and many employees are using this network to hire their employees (14).

For instance, approximate 22% of employees look or check the Facebook profiles of their prospective employees to see whether they drink too much, use drugs, trash former employees, or tell the trade secrets on their profiles (Mary et al., 2010). This, therefore, raises the question of ethics. It is actually ethical for employees to check the profiles of the prospective candidates for them to determine if they can bank or trust them in their own companies.

According to Mary et al. (2010), employees should not use Facebook during their hiring process because this is invasion of privacy; current laws do not allow this, and the information posted on the personal profiles of potential candidates may not be accurate (13). Furthermore, using Facebook for hiring may discriminate, lead to wrongful firing cases of good employees, and in the long-run lead to financial loses and damage of the company reputation.

For instance, the privacy act of 1988 stipulates the manner and the way personal information is collected. The principle states that no personal information should be collected by a collector for the purpose of including it in a record or in any generally available publication except for circumstances where such information serves lawful purposes that relates to the activity or function of the collector.

Therefore, in this sense, information available on Facebook is not directly or necessary related to the purpose of recruiting an employee (Mary, Charlie, and Jitendra, and Bharat, 2010, p.15). In this case an employee has the reservation to argue that such information his/her personal activity and profile hence does not relate or is outside the work environment.

Another law requires that when information of an individual is collected on Facebook, the individual ought to be aware of the purpose that information is being collected for (Mary, Charlie, Jitendra, and Bharat, 2010, p. 14).

Therefore, intruding somebody’s information and using the same for your own purposes surmount to violations of law which is taken as breach of the law. Therefore, employers who retrieved information through Facebook for hiring process ought to seek permission from the owner of the information otherwise they would be contravening the laws on privacy.

Ethical issues on Facebook

Another ethical issues arising from the use of Facebook is the impersonation of other people in order to gain access to other members or group profile information.

For instance, the information on Facebook is not supposed to be used for commercial purposes; but in order to access such information many people or even employees conceal their identity and pretend to be members of such groups just to gain an opportunity to view the information of other people (Gil-Or, 2010, p. 20).

Information technology has created this ethical issue. Furthermore, the age limit for a person to access and register on Facebook is 13 years. Currently many parents who are supposed to ensure that their children under the age are not able to register on the Facebook flout this requirement.

Instead, many children gain accessibility and open their accounts without abiding by the legal requirements. It becomes an ethical issue when the guardians or parents who are supposed to control and guide their children assist them to open accounts on the internet. Such actions contravene the law and it is unethical practice.

Cultural impacts

Facebook has also cut across the cultural forms of communication. It is easy to operate and open; many people have joined it and made friends across the globe. The invention of Facebook in 2004 marked a big turning point in the world of information technology and multimedia.

The old forms of communication were broken; the age factor is outdated. Both old and the young people over 13 years are able to interact and share the information with each other. For instance, at the age of 102, Bean Ivy from Bradford joined Facebook in 2008 making her the oldest person on Facebook. This actually was a peculiar thing, which showed that Facebook is a modern form of communication which is able to accommodate every person.

Effects of use of Facebook

Facebook has also violated work ethics. Most employees spend a lot of their time chatting and sending messages to their friends instead of doing their work. This has caused many of them failing to meet their targets and execute their duties as required. This is an unethical issue which has seen many employers ban employees from accessing/using it during their working hours.

This technology has also heightened the level at which youth especially students influence their fellow students. Most of the students in college have fallen culprits and turned into alcoholism as a result of peer group influence through Facebook (Ridout, Campbell, and Ellis, 2012, p.20).

Furthermore, many countries across the world, such as China, Pakistan, and Syria have banned or restricted the use of or access to Facebook because of its impacts on people’s social life (Elefant, 2011, p. 42). Facebook also has a risk of transmitting information and content that may trigger conflicts. Some of the countries banned it because it allowed contents perceived to be anti-Islamic, that contained information discriminating against other religions.

Political impacts

In the recent past and even current, Facebook as one form of social media has gained much approval and use in the political sphere (Wicke, 2011, p. 1132). Many politicians and even civil groups use Facebook in spreading their ideologies and policies to their followers. For instance, during 2008 presidential elections in the USA, president Obama used Facebook as one of his avenues to communicate and sale his policies to the audience. It actually assisted him to some level in taking over the leadership of USA as the president.

Not withstanding, the revolutions that marred most of the North African countries such as Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt were made by Facebook. Activists in Egypt used Facebook to update their supporters to continue with their demonstration at the Tahrir square in Cairo, which saw them emerge the victor when the president Hussein Mubarak was ousted from the government (Richard, Emily, Anna, and Jessica, 2009, p. 102).

Facebook as a social media is prone to be abused because of the freedom it gives the person using it. This brings about the question of ethics.

For instance, a person may decide to conceal his/her identity and use vulgar languages, post pornographic material and even insult other people in network or in a group and go court free (Amanda, Emmanuel, Tara, and Alice, 2010, p. 406). The language and the tone of the users of Facebook should be moderate and acceptable.

The network is not able to hold such people liable owing to the larger coverage of the users. Therefore, this is an issue that needs to be looked at in order to ensure that this social media is not used to destroy and spread abusive speech across the globe. Abusive events and comments are not supposed to be tagged on somebody’s profile as they contravene ethics (Andrew, Nicole, Cliff Lampe, and Yvette, 2011, p. 2322)

Conclusion

In conclusion, there is no doubt that indeed Facebook as a social media has gone far in creating networks that have turned out to be effective and of greater help to people across the globe. The media has helped people keep in touch and reduce the costs of travelling. It has also provided a spectrum where people have been able to connect with new friends and able to socialize with people from different cultural background hence promoting diversity.

Furthermore, the internet has seen many people get jobs or loved ones reconnect after a very long period of staying apart. Notwithstanding, this social media has a number of flaws, which need to be looked into in order to make it even more better and useful channel of connecting people across the world.

Some of the challenges it faces is consuming a lot of people time thus making them less productive in their work and hindering people to interact directly. The media can also be used in a wrong manner whereby groups of people can use it to create rifts among people among other issues. Facebook as a current form of Information Technology and multimedia has proved its value and might be regarded as one of the greatest achievements in the 21^st century.

List of References

Amanda, N., Emmanuel, Y., Tara, G., and Alice, C., 2010. All about me: Disclosure in online social networking profiles: The case of Facebook. Computers inhuman Behavior, 26(3), pp. 406-418

Andrew, D., Nicole B., Cliff Lampe, D., and Yvette W., 2011. Facebook as a toolkit: A uses and gratification approach to /unbundling future use, Computers in human behaviour, 27(6), pp 2322-2329

Ashwini Nadkarni, Stefan G. Hoffmann, 2011. Why do people use Facebook?, personality and individual differences, 52(3), pp. 243-249.

Elefant, C., 2011. The “power” of social media: legal issues & best practices for utilities engaging social media. Energy Law Journal, 32(1), pp. 1-56

Gardner, D, 2010. “The marriage killer: One in five American divorces now involves Facebook”. Mail Online (London).

Gil-Or, Or., 2010. The Potential of Facebook in Creating Commercial Value for Service Companies. Advances in Management, 3(2), pp. 20-25

Mary, O., Charlie, P., Jitendra, M., and Bharat, M., 2010. Employers Use Facebook Too, for Hiring. Advances in Management, (3), 1, pp. 13-17

Richard, D. W., Emily B., Anna, L., and Jessica, L., 2009. Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How non profit organizations are using Facebook, public relations review, Volume, 35 (2), pp. 102-106.

Ridout, B., Campbell, A., and Ellis, L., 2012. ‘Off your Face(book)’: Alcohol in online social identity construction and its relation to problem drinking in university students. Drug & Alcohol Review, 31(1), pp. 20-26

Stahl, B., 2011. Teaching Ethical Reflexivity in Information Systems: How to Equip Students to Deal With Moral and Ethical Issues of Emerging Information and Communication Technologies. Journal of Information Systems Education, 22(3), pp. 253-260

Wicke, J., 2011. Epilogue: Celebrity’s Facebook.. PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 126(4), pp. 1131-1139

Public Administration

The term “public administration” refers to the implementation of appropriate policies that can meet citizens’ needs (Shafritz, Russell, & Borick, 2013). Public administrators working in government-sponsored agencies or departments promote policy implementation processes. Governments play a significant role in the development of policies. They come up with visions and ideas that are translated into programs. Such initiatives are usually aimed at delivering the intended goals or outcomes. They also offer adequate resources for conducting feasibility studies. Governments also engage in lobbying and sensitization whereby members of the public are encouraged to support various policy ideas.

Comparison of Organizations

The selected organizations for this discussion include Stanford University and Facebook Incorporation. The roles undertaken in these organizations differ significantly. For instance, the employees at Stanford University educate learners and engage in various research studies. At Facebook, workers pursue new ideas and innovations to meet the needs of different customers (Uwizeyimana & Maphunye, 2014). Their cultures are quite similar because attributes such a slogans, values, and missions are common in each organization. The purpose of Stanford University differs from that of Facebook. The first one focuses on education attainment while the second one concentrates on profits.

The political environment influences the effectiveness of these two organizations. This is due to emerging policies and political situations. From a social perspective, Facebook is capable of attracting more customers due to the changing consumer behaviors. At Stanford University, the desire for education is attracting more students to the institution. The economic forces experienced in the world today are having similar impacts on these organizations (Uwizeyimana & Maphunye, 2014). This is true because increasing salaries and economic performance will encourage people to use social media or pursue new educational programs.

This study has informed me a lot about public organizations. To begin with, they are influenced by similar forces such as social and political factors. They also embrace positive cultures. Management should also be taken seriously to deliver positive results. Emerging social trends will compel individuals to embrace specific behaviors that will affect or promote the performance of public organizations. The existing political climate will also dictate their effectiveness. Economic changes will dictate the profitability of such public organizations (Uwizeyimana & Maphunye, 2014). However, an institution’s model can make it successful even when such forces act on it negatively.

Internal and External Cultures

In public organizations, the term “external culture” can be used to refer to the environment served (Shafritz et al., 2013). This will vary significantly depending on the organization’s setting. For example, a police department operating in a rural region will be have a different external culture in comparison with another one providing services in an urban region. Such an organization should, therefore, develop an effective model depending on the nature of its internal culture in an attempt to deliver superior services and meet the diverse needs of more citizens.

On the other hand, internal culture focuses on the attributes, beliefs, values, ideas, and assumptions that are implemented within an organization in order to guide the behaviors and actions of different members (Shafritz et al., 2013). A positive internal culture can empower different employees or civil servants to develop appropriate models for delivering superior services. Uwizeyimana and Maphunye (2014) also indicate that this kind of practice can be influenced by the existing external culture. Public organizations that want to succeed must strike a balance between these two cultural aspects. The move will make it easier for them to monitor the challenges affecting their employees and stakeholders in the community and eventually deliver positive results.

References

Shafritz, J. M., Russell, E. W., & Borick, C. P. (2013). Introducing public administration. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Uwizeyimana, D. E., & Maphunye, K. J. (2014). The changing global public administration and its theoretical and practical implications for Africa. Journal of Public Administration and Policy Research, 6(4), 90-101. Web.