I think that this is something important to highlight as well. There are a lot of people that are looking at a district from online. If people are posting wrong or offensive things about the district, this could create potential problems for people who are looking at the district. I think the true image of the district should be able to be reflected, and not false allegations or posts from kids on social media. Therefore, monitoring the public posts per the districts own well being is important.

I think that administration viewing students public posts has no harm. They are choosing to make these posts public. This means anyone that views their page has the ability to see it. If they wanted something to be private I do not think that they should be sharing that publicly. I think the fact of this being "okay" has a lot to do with cultural relativism. This is relevant for the school community and with recent events happening in schools they want to make sure schools are safe, this is one way precautions can be taken.

This allows me to wonder if they are omitting this information from the students, so that way they do share more, or have more public privacy settings. If they are educating them on privacy settings, why not inform them of aspects that are unaware of like this service and how they are being monitored. I think that they the administration is thinking in terms of duty ethics. They have the duty to correct past wrongs involving protection of schools. They also have the duty to keep commitments which includes ensuring students are safe at their school.

In a book titled Ethical Principles, Reasoning and Decision Making, it lays out different ethical theories and principles. I chose to look at the Utilitarian principle. The idea of this ethical principle is the greatest good for the greatest number. This means if something makes a lot of people happy, it is right. If it makes a lot of people unhappy, it is wrong. This aspect more focuses on the result of the action, rather than the action itself. It does not explore intent or motives. It is a theory that determines if something is right or wrong based off of the results that are produced.

I think that this last part goes against one of Dash's ideas. Maybe rather supports it. Technologists are creating these platforms and technologies and when does the responsibility fall on them for what they created. Dash brought up Twitter's role in Arab Spring. Since things for that were going well, Twitter took responsibility. Though, when things go bad, Twitter has nothing to do with it. How is this then the users responsibly? I think that technologists should be held accountable for the things they create, regardless if that is good or bad.

I think that this is a really interesting point. How are there standards placed and all of these very vast things. I think this also brings up how amazing it is that we have all of these different things in front of us. The fact that we have the ability to make all of these different diverse things is astounding. However, this could potentially get out of hand if we have no way of regulating these things.

I think this aspect can relate directly back to some points that Dash made. We have no regulations on designing technologies to be constructive or de-constructive. There is no moral or ethical code for technologists. Therefore, sometimes things can be designed that make technologies "bad". I think the conversation surrounding this is very interesting and something both users and technologists should explore. This also makes me think about how technology is only evolving from here and there are a lot of places that it could evolve to. Maybe designing technology with a common goal in mind is something that we could strive for in the future.