​ The Ethics of Social Media - Full Notes Paired with Prezi (http://goo.gl/IMFlaa)

Moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior.

Synonyms: moral code, morals, morality, values, rights and wrongs, principles, ideals, standards (of behavior), value system, virtues, dictates of conscience

This means: Social Media has NO ethics!

As human, we have a set of ethical values that we live by. Thus, the focus is how we use our own ethics in our use of social media and technology.

So, before we get into the details about that, I want to highlight some of the ethical issues that arise with the use of social media.

Alright, so these are the main categories, which, have a lot of information embedded into each one. So now, let’s get to how Jewish ethics play a role in this.

Emojis

With a person next to you, choose one emoji that is your favorite and explain why.

Now, with your partner, look at these two words. If someone sent you this message, how would you read it?

With a partner, read these two texts. What do you notice? What is confusing? What do you like?

"One silver basin" was brought as a symbol of the Torah which has been likened to wine, as it says "And drink of the wine which I have mingled" (Mishlei 9:5). Now because it is customary to drink wine in a basin, you may gather from the text, "that drink wine in bowls" (Amos 6:6) -- he on that account, brought a basin. "Of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary" (Bamidbar 7:19). Why? As the numerical value of yayin (wine) is seventy, so there are seventy modes of expounding the Torah.

Or HaChaim on Genesis 1:1:5 (Or HaChaim is a commentary on the Torah written by Chaim ben Moshe ibn Attar (1696-1743).)You should know that we have permission to explain the implication of the verses after careful study – even though our conclusions differ from the explanation of our Sages. That is because there are 70 faces to the Torah. There is no prohibition against differing from the words of our Sages except if it changes the Halacha. Similarly, we find that even though the Amoraim did not have the right to disagree with the Tannaim in halachic matters – but we find that they offered alternative explanations to verses.

​

Have someone read the text on the slide. Have someone read the text on the sheet.

Each of us has a name given by God and given by our parents. Each of us has a name given by our stature and our smile and given by what we wear./ Each of us has a name given by the mountains and given by our walls./ Each of us has a name given by the stars and given by our neighbors./ Each of us has a name given by our sins and given by our longing./ Each of us has a name given by our enemies and given by our love./ Each of us has a name given by our celebrations and given by our work./ Each of us has a name given by the seasons and given by our blindness./ Each of us has a name given by the sea and given by our death. (Zelda, "Each Man Has a Name," as adapted by Marcia Falk in The Book of Blessings, New York: Harper Collins, 1996, p. 106ff.)

Jeffrey Rosen wrote an article about this idea of losing sight of being able to forgive in our digital world. I have a number of quotes from him throughout this.

...The narrow focus on privacy as a form of control misses what really worries people on the Internet today. What people seem to want is not simply control over their privacy settings; they want control over their online reputations. But the idea that any of us can control our reputations is, of course, an unrealistic fantasy. The truth is we can’t possibly control what others say or know or think about us in a world of Facebook and Google, nor can we realistically demand that others give us the deference and respect to which we think we’re entitled. On the Internet, it turns out, we’re not entitled to demand any particular respect at all, and if others don’t have the empathy necessary to forgive our missteps, or the attention spans necessary to judge us in context, there’s nothing we can do about. (Jeffrey Rosen's article "The End of Forgetting")

Now we are going to enter into talking about the content of what is placed online. While I have separated it out into three categories; privacy, property, and appropriateness, it is really hard to know where the lines truly are.

Judaism views privacy as an element of communal holiness and ethical perfection rather than as an individual right.... Because the concept of privacy is a relatively modern one, it is not explicitly discussed in traditional Jewish sources. Indeed, Classical Hebrew does not even have a word for "privacy" (the modern Hebrew word is prayeiyut). That said, a number of Jewish texts do relate to various aspects of what would today be considered personal privacy. (Stein, Jonathan. "Judaism and Privacy" myjewishlearning.com)

By erasing external memories, our society accepts that human beings evolve over time, that we have the capacity to learn from past experiences and adjust our behavior. In traditional societies, where missteps are observed but not necessarily recorded, the limits of human memory ensure that people’s sins are eventually forgotten. By contrast….a society in which everything is recorded will forever tether us to all our past actions, making it impossible, in practice, to escape them. Without some form of forgetting, forgiving becomes a difficult undertaking. (Mayer-Schoenberger, Victor. "Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age.")

It might be helpful for us to explore new ways of living in a world that is slow to forgive. It’s sobering, now that we live in a world misleading called a "global village,” to think about privacy in actual, small villages long ago. In the villages described in the Babylonian Talmud, for example, any kind of gossip or tale-bearing about other people-oral or written, true or false, friendly or mean- was considered a terrible sin because small communities have long memories and every word spoken about other people was thought to ascend to the heavenly cloud. (The digital cloud has made this metaphor literal.) But these…villages were, in fact, far more humane and forgiving than our brutal global village, where much of the content on the internet would meet the Talmudic definition of gossip. Although the Talmudic sages believed that God reads our thoughts and records them in the book of life, they also believed that God erases the book for those who atone for their sins by asking forgiveness of those they have wronged….Unlike God, however, the digital cloud rarely wipes our slate clean, and the keepers of the cloud today are sometimes less forgiving than their all-powerful divine predecessor. (Jeffrey Rosen's article "The End of Forgetting")

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to the tongue, all the limbs of man are erect, but you are horizontal; they are all outside the body but you are inside. More than that, I have surrounded you with two walls, one of bone and the other of flesh.

The Rabbis explain that the design of our bodies also tries to minimize our speech since humans have two eyes, two ears, and two nostrils, but only one mouth. It is even said that the reason humans have earlobes is so that they can be used as earplugs when lashon hara is being spoken. Within the same text, it also includes the another way to block out gossip rather than using our earlobes: "Why are the fingers tapered like pegs? So that if one hears anything improper he can insert them in his ears."

Rabbi Levi said: Six organs serve the human being: three are under his control and three are not. The latter are the eye, ear, and nose. He sees what he does not wish to see, hears what he does not wish to hear, and smells what he does not wish to smell. Under his control are the mouth, hand, and foot. If he so desires, he reads in the Torah, or uses bad language or blasphemes. As for the hand, if he so desires, it performs good deeds or steals or murders. As for the foot, if he so desires, it walks to theatres and circuses, or to places of worship and study....

It is prohibited by the Torah to accept and believe lashon hara. One who accepts it transgresses the prohibition of, "Do not accept a false report" (Exodus 23:1)... It is also forbidden to intentionally listen to lashon hara even if one has no intention of believing it. However, there is a difference between (1) listening versus (2) believing lashon hara

The prohibition of Lashon Hara applies as much to speaking about him verbally as it does to writing about him in a letter. There is also no difference how he communicates the Lashon Hara –whether explicitly or by way of a hint – in all cases it is categorized as Lashon Hara.