32 thoughts on “Evaluation of social media content using standards of ethics #UPFight

  1. NOTE: for post under “sepialopez”: Thank you for this post. Note that except for a simple “did not violate etc..”, this has no discussion (see our previous exercises , lecture notes, articles in the syllabus, and discussion in class). Also, see previous exercises and the first exams: generic answers without articulating the reasons or giving an explanation (by defining, then explaining or illustrating, etc, which we have been doing the entire semester and which every member of the class was able to do) will not merit any points. Therefore, to be fair to everybody who did a lot work, this will not merit the full points. Thank you again. -marichu
    * * *
    https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1OtDr5ii6ijxMW6p6JXi7kevSJX8xQOXP

    The first tweet did not violate the Twitter Policies in Intellectual Property, Graphic Violence and Adult Content, Unlawful Use, Distribution of Hacked Materials, Trends, Third-party advertising in video content, Misuse of Twitter Badges, and Misuse of Usernames, Abuse Behavior and Spam & Security.
    The second tweet did not violate the Twitter Policies in Intellectual Property, Graphic Violence and Adult Content, Unlawful Use, Distribution of Hacked Materials, Trends, Third-party advertising in video content, Misuse of Twitter Badges, Misuse of Usernames, Abuse Behavior and Spam & Security.
    The third tweet did not violate the Twitter Policies in Intellectual Property, Graphic Violence and Adult Content, Unlawful Use, Distribution of Hacked Materials, Trends, Third-party advertising in video content, Misuse of Twitter Badges, Misuse of Usernames, Abuse Behavior and Spam & Security.
    The fourth tweet may have used an expletive, but this was not targeted to a specific person and did not commit a hate crime. Thus, it follows the Twitter Policies.
    The fifth tweet did not violate the Twitter Policies in Intellectual Property, Graphic Violence and Adult Content, Unlawful Use, Distribution of Hacked Materials, Trends, Third-party advertising in video content, Misuse of Twitter Badges, Misuse of Usernames, Abuse Behavior and Spam & Security.
    The sixth tweet did not violate the Twitter Policies in Intellectual Property, Graphic Violence and Adult Content, Unlawful Use, Distribution of Hacked Materials, Trends, Third-party advertising in video content, Misuse of Twitter Badges, Misuse of Usernames, Abuse Behavior and Spam & Security.
    The seventh tweet did not violate the Twitter Policies in Intellectual Property, Graphic Violence and Adult Content, Unlawful Use, Distribution of Hacked Materials, Trends, Third-party advertising in video content, Misuse of Twitter Badges, Misuse of Usernames, Abuse Behavior and Spam & Security.
    The eighth tweet did not violate the Twitter Policies in Intellectual Property, Graphic Violence and Adult Content, Unlawful Use, Distribution of Hacked Materials, Trends, Third-party advertising in video content, Misuse of Twitter Badges, Misuse of Usernames, Abuse Behavior and Spam & Security.
    The ninth tweet did not violate the Twitter Policies in Intellectual Property, Graphic Violence and Adult Content, Unlawful Use, Distribution of Hacked Materials, Trends, Third-party advertising in video content, Misuse of Twitter Badges, Misuse of Usernames, Abuse Behavior and Spam & Security.
    The tenth tweet used pictures were from NASA, but the user made this clear by attributing it with proper context so as to not mislead anyone. Thus, it does not violate any of Twitter’s intellectual property policies.

  2. From blog admin: For the entry under “ishkafish”: On Item Number 5: “… did not sight from where she or he grabbed the photo” : “did not sight” where he/she grabbed the photo probably results from being visually challenged — a disability and not a fault; but if the netizen did not CITE the source of the photo, he/she is stealing intellectual property. -marichu
    *************************

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HXkvpaUHrN3wU6MRF6e4OPrceY4cG69tNiwj0JjnHE8/edit?usp=sharing

  3. From blog admin: For the entry under “athenachri”: For item number 9 : “dudurugin” (will crush) does not mean they will turn their fellow human beings into powdery particles; it was used figuratively. -marichu
    ********************

    http://bit.ly/Athena110Exam

  4. From blog admin: For the entry under “jerwinparedes”: On Items Number 1-3: Criticizing a fraternity for the fraternity violence it has committed as video-recorded and as witnessed by many, is not hate speech. Pls review everything we have taken up the entire semester. On Items Number 6-7: Criticizing UP fans for bashing others is not hate speech: pls review again the definition of hate speech. On Item number 9: Saying Adamson will lose badly in the next game is not hate speech. Pls go back to discussions made in the entire sem. -marichu
    *********************
    https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UrU5ucJvK3pPpR9MzG8jXrwrMPIa-wnU

    Photos 1-3
    – Personally, I think these tweets violate Twitter’s Hateful Conduct Policy. Although the group being targeted (Upsilon) isn’t part of any of the categories enumerated (race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease), these tweets still promote hate towards a group of people. While I agree that Upsilon should be held accountable because of the issues they were recently involved with, I think that it is unethical to blatantly say these things to them.

    Photos 4-5
    – I don’t think these tweets violate Twitter’s Hateful Conduct Policy. Although they seem to be mocking religion, they don’t incite fear or threats, or promote hate towards religious groups.

    Photos 6-7
    – I think these tweets are unethical because they promote hate towards groups of people (UP community, “biglang naging fan ng UP), and made a threat for physical harm (“sipain ko kayo sa ngala ngala e”).

    Photo 8
    – This tweet is unethical because it contains slurs (pangit, mas pangit) with an intent to degrade an individual (Manganti).

    Photo 9
    – This tweet is unethical because it promotes hate towards a group of people (Adamson) with an intent to degrade them.

    Photos 10-13
    – These tweets do not violate any Twitter Policy, but instead show support and sportsmanship between each team, whether they won or lost the game.

  5. From blog admin: For the entry under “conzcmon” : On Item number 3: The Oblation photo with the graphics “may bird din sya” is not hateful image (pls review definitions we have taken up).-marichu
    ***************
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J0Ck5YmDpxD4rGSIa6IsYkJk4vAEsPLybnMSuJriYzU/edit?usp=sharing

    Link to COMM 110 Digital Exam
    Post ten social media content (10 tweets or 10 FB posts), for 4 point each on last night’s historic game, and evaluate each using the FB community standards or the twitter guidelines and policies (40 points).

  6. From blog admin: For the entry under “nfloreza”: On Item number 1: The hashtag #OustDuterte does not necessarily incite violence, it is generic: Pls go back to definitions.
    On Item number 4: This is satire.
    On Item number 5: Unidiomatic. In any case, this did not “speculate against an institution like UP”
    On Item number 6: It’s a meme. See definitions of “meme”
    On Item number 9: Why does criticizing frat violence (by saying the frat paddles will be burned at the bonfire) a violation of the Twitter policy against “affiliating with organizations that promote violence”? IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE. -marichu


    Good evening Ma’am! Attached is the link to the google document of my digital final exam: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K-0uiV2eBYqXWoh0Dic25Pt1ELCbVj4L7BXD_6-YSjs/edit?usp=sharing

  7. From blog admin: For the entry under “paula”: On Item number 1: Imagery of Paul Desiderio as a “clutch” using the photo of a car clutch is not hate speech nor hateful imagery: Pls go back to definitions.
    On Item number 2: “Clutch” in basketball jargon is a compliment (ability to perform under intense pressure in the last two minutes or in the dying seconds of the game); it is not hate speech nor hateful conduct. Pls go back to definitions.
    On Item number 6: The artwork depicting the UP logo of a clenched fist grasping a blue eagle is not a form of bullying. Pls go back to an entire semester’s discussion of what constitutes bullying.


    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OMVHTl4cP4ll1l0V3GJEjOYw38vCxXQq/view?usp=sharing

  8. From blog admin: For the entry under (malay)a: On Item number 1: Urging Adamson students to buy tickets on the UP side is not abusive behavior. Pls review definitions.
    On Item number 8: Criticizing a slogan or hashtag is not an attack as to be unethical. Pls review discussions on commentaries. -marichu
    *****************

    Good Evening. I have attached my Digital Exam below.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1muLDDq1h-Zm8LgUlj4FN_Gpzv66CZqGMMTLoYC74e4k/edit?usp=sharing

  9. From blog admin: For the entry under “mitzvi”: On Item number 3: The Oblation is not “adult content”, i.e., it is not pornographic.
    On Item number 5: Saying that U.P. has many “prominent” alumni is not hateful conduct. Pls see definitions.
    On Item number 7: It is addressed to the UP-CHDP community (UP Manila Community Health and Development Program). The intro on health in the tweet therefore is not a form of misrepresentation.


    Good evening, Ma’am! Here is the link for my final exam:

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jXiAOsg_V8Zo6RWKB_acyWua3zHgEXfzJWHtQGV5ITo/edit?usp=sharing

  10. for post under “sepialopez”: Thank you for this post. Note that except for a simple “did not violate etc..”, this has no discussion (see our previous exercises , lecture notes, articles in the syllabus, and discussion in class). Also, see previous exercises and the first exams: generic answers without articulating the reasons or giving an explanation (by defining, then explaining or illustrating, etc, which we have been doing the entire semester and which every member of the class was able to do) will not merit any points. Therefore, to be fair to everybody who did a lot work, this will not merit the full points. Thank you again. -marichu

  11. for the entry under “ishkafish”: On Item Number 5: “… did not sight from where she or he grabbed the photo” : “did not sight” where he/she grabbed the photo probably results from being visually challenged — a disability and not a fault; but if the netizen did not cite the source of the photo, he/she is stealing intellectual property.

  12. For the entry under “athenachri”: For item number 9 : “dudurugin” (will crush) does not mean they will turn their fellow human beings into powdery particles; it was used figuratively.

  13. For the entry under “chesadrno”: On item number 5: Reminding people of frat violence committed by a certain fraternity is not hate speech. Pls review everything that was taken up in the entire sem.

  14. For the entry under “jerwinparedes”: On Items Number 1-3: Criticizing a fraternity for the fraternity violence it has committed as video-recorded and as witnessed by many, is not hate speech. Pls review everything we have taken up the entire semester. On Items Number 6-7: Criticizing UP fans for bashing others is not hate speech: pls review again the definition of hate speech. On Item number 9: Saying Adamson will lose badly in the next game is not hate speech. Pls go back to discussions made in the entire sem. -marichu

  15. For the entry under “conzcmon” : On Item number 3: The Oblation photo with the graphics “may bird din sya” is not hateful image (pls review definitions we have taken up).-marichu

  16. For the entry under “nfloreza”: On Item number 1: Hashtag #OustDuterte does not necessarily promote violence: Pls go back to definitions under Law on Mass Media.
    On Item number 4: This is satire.
    On Item number 5: Unidiomatic. In any case, this did not “speculate against an institution like UP”
    On Item number 6: It’s a meme. See definitions of “meme”
    On Item number 9: Why does criticizing frat violence (by saying the frat paddles will be burned at the bonfire) a violation of the Twitter policy against “affiliating with organizations that promote violence”? IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE.

  17. For the entry under “paula”: On Item number 1: Imagery of Paul Desiderio as a “clutch” using the photo of a car clutch is not hate speech nor hateful imagery: Pls go back to definitions.
    On Item number 2: “Clutch” in basketball jargon is a compliment (ability to perform under intense pressure in the last two minutes or in the dying seconds of the game); it is not hate speech nor hateful conduct. Pls go back to definitions.
    On Item number 6: The artwork depicting the UP logo of a clenched fist grasping a blue eagle is not a form of bullying. Pls go back to an entire semester’s discussion of what constitutes bullying.

  18. For the entry under (malay)a: On Item number 1: Urging Adamson students to buy tickets on the UP side is not abusive behavior. Pls review definitions.
    On Item number 8: Criticizing a slogan or hashtag is not an attack as to be unethical. Pls review discussions on commentaries.

  19. For the entry under “ninerz”: On Item number 8: The ouster of the dictator in ’86 was not violent. Pls review your history. This tweet does not promote violence.

  20. For the entry under “mitzvi”: On Item number 3: The Oblation is not “adult content”, i.e., it is not pornographic.
    On Item number 5: Saying that U.P. has many “prominent” alumni is not hateful conduct. Pls see definitions.
    On Item number 7: It is addressed to the UP-CHDP community (UP Manila Community Health and Development Program). The intro on health in the tweet therefore is not a form of misrepresentation.

  21. For the entry under “raichu13”: On Item number 8: It is a criticism of the slogans supposedly chanted by the other side, the tweet is not hateful conduct.

If the comment posted does not appear here, that's because COMMENTS WITH SEVERAL HYPERLINKS ARE DETAINED BY AKISMET AT THE SPAM FOLDER.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.