Many people believe that the Internet and computers have created a digital divide between the haves and have-nots of society. Some argue that this has serious moral repercussions and that the gap has to be closed since those on the bottom are being unfairly treated and may feel discriminated against or socially ostracized as a result. Do you believe that everyone, irrespective of where they live, their financial situation, their level of education, or their ability to use computers, should have access to the Internet? Who should provide aid and education and who should foot the bill? Why isn't Internet access mandatory for everyone?

Many people believe that the Internet and computers have created a digital divide between the haves and have-nots of society. Some argue that this has serious moral repercussions and that the gap has to be closed since those on the bottom are being unfairly treated and may feel discriminated against or socially ostracized as a result. Do you believe that everyone, irrespective of where they live, their financial situation, their level of education, or their ability to use computers, should have access to the Internet? Who should provide aid and education and who should foot the bill? Why isn't Internet access mandatory for everyone?

Principles of Information Systems (MindTap Course List)

13th Edition

ISBN:9781305971776

Author:Ralph Stair, George Reynolds

Publisher:Ralph Stair, George Reynolds

Chapter14: Ethical, Legal, And Social Issues Of Information Systems

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 14SAT

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

In today’s technologically advanced society, is there really privacy? Based on your own personal experiences with social media (Facebook, Twitter, Tik Tok, Instagram, or Snapchat), do you feel that individuals should be held accountable for their actions outside of the workplace? Is it possible that, due to the technological advances in smart phones, tablets, and other communication devices, workplace and personal privacy have meshed together to a point that what was once personal space is now fair game in the hiring and firing practices?
Many people believe that the world of digital technology may be roughly divided into two groups: those who have access to a computer and the Internet, and others who do not. Some people believe that this has substantial ethical implications and that there is a moral obligation to remedy the imbalance. Those who "have nots" may feel discriminated against or socially ostracized, and they miss out on a wide variety of life opportunities as a result. Do you believe that everyone, regardless of where they live, their needs, their level of ability, or their financial means, ought should have access to computers and the Internet? Who is responsible for providing services and education, as well as footing the bill? Why isn't having access to the internet a must for everyone?
What kind of social and ethical repercussions may technology such as robots and artificial intelligence have? Would it, in the long run, be more convenient for robots to take over all of our occupations if it were feasible to do so? If it is the case, what would cause that?
Many people believe that the digital world may be roughly divided into two groups: those who have access to computers and the Internet, and those who do not. Some argue that this has serious moral repercussions, and that the disparity must be addressed. Those on the bottom may feel marginalized and deprived of opportunities because of it. Do you believe that everyone, whatever where they live, their financial situation, their level of education, or their level of technological expertise, should have access to computers and the Internet? Whose responsibility is it to provide aid and instruction and whose money will cover the costs? So why isn't universal Internet access a necessity?
Numerous ordinary devices (such as amusement park rides, automobiles, elevators, and ovens) that you would not ordinarily identify with a computer or information system are in reality computers or information systems nowadays. While there are certain advantages, are there also risks? For instance, would you feel more or less secure riding a computer-controlled roller coaster? Do the advantages of expanding the computerization of common things outweigh the risks? What are your reasons for or against?
A wide variety of everyday objects (including attractions at amusement parks, autos, elevators, and ovens) are really computers or information systems these days. The typical person would not connect them to a computer or database. The benefits are obvious, but are there any downsides to consider? As an example, if you rode a computer-controlled roller coaster, how confident would you be in its safety? As more and more mundane tasks are automated by computers, we have to ask whether the benefits are worth the cons. If so, then explain why.
Many everyday objects (such as amusement park rides, autos, elevators, and ovens) that you would not typically associate with a computer or information system are, in fact, computers or information systems in today's society. While there are some benefits, are there also hazards involved in this situation? For example, would you feel more or less comfortable if you were on a roller coaster that was computer-controlled? What are the dangers and benefits of growing the computerization of everyday activities? Do the benefits exceed the hazards? What are your arguments in favor of or against it?
Many everyday items (such as amusement park rides, autos, elevators, and ovens) that you would not normally associate with a computer or information system are now computers or information systems. Are there any hazards, in addition to the benefits? Would you feel more or less comfortable riding a computer-controlled roller coaster, for example? Do the benefits of increased computerization of everyday activities outweigh the risks? What are your arguments for and against?
What kinds of societal and moral repercussions may result from the widespread use of artificial intelligence and robotics?Do you think that if robots were to replace all human employees in the long run, it would be more advantageous to replace humans with robots? In the event that this is the case, what proof do you have to back up the assertion that you made?
What implications does extensive usage of artificial intelligence and robots have for society and morality? Do you think it would be better for robots to replace all human employees in the long run if humans were eliminated from the workforce entirely? If this is the case, then what proof do you have to back up the assertion that you made?
According to the findings of a research on patient travel times, trips to the doctor took more time for individuals of color and the unemployed. Another problem that people who live in rural locations face is having access to medical treatment that is of a sufficient standard. Is it feasible that the use of video telemedicine will make healthcare more accessible to populations who are currently underserved? Is there a way that the underprivileged may have access to more healthcare services with the use of this technology?
Robots may be trained to do jobs that might be harmful to human health, insulting to sensitive audiences, or just too monotonous for human workers. If you think robots could eventually outperform humans in some jobs, provide an example. Provide justification for why you think it's preferable for this work to be performed by a computer rather than a human.