To complete the Module (Information Warfare) Case Analysis, read “What Facebook Did to American Democracy” and then use ethical tool (Contractarianism ) and the two readings from this module (Jarred Prier and Keith Scott) in order to answer this question: Did Facebook engage in Information Warfare? Why or why not? Is Facebook responsible in any way for the outcome of the 2016 election? Why? Write your case analysis according to these guidelines: • First, in 150–300 words, write an introductory paragraph that presents in summary (only) the details about the case presented by Madrigal that are relevant to your argument. End with a thesis statement addressing the prompt, e.g., “In this Case Analysis I will argue that [ethical tool] shows us that Facebook [did/did not] engage in information warfare because [reason], and further that they [were/were not] partly responsible for the election outcome because [reason].” • Next, in several paragraphs totaling 500-800 words, (a) explain one or more central concepts from Prier, (b) use that concept or those concepts to analyze the case, and (c) use your selected ethical tool to assess the actions taken in the case, as understood through your analysis, arguing for what you think was the right thing to have done based on this assessment and analysis. (Note: If you want, you can do Scott first and Prier second—you’ll see that the instructions for the next section are identical except for switching the authors.) • Then, in several paragraphs totaling 500-800 words, (a) explain one or more central concepts from Scott, (b) use that concept or those concepts to analyze the case, and (c) use your selected ethical tool to assess the actions taken in the case, as understood through your analysis, arguing for what you think was the right thing to have done based on this assessment and analysis. • Finally, in 150–300 words, summarize your position and make other concluding remarks. Don’t make your argument here—you should be making your argument using our authors and your tool for ethical reasoning throughout the entire main part of the paper. The conclusion should summarize the argument and then consider objections or alternate views, respond to those objections, consider wider implications or related cases, and/or consider problems in or drawbacks to your position. Don’t try to do all of these different things—do whichever of them you think fits best with your position and argument. Also: Don’t be afraid to recognize problems in your argument! Working through moral issues shouldn’t be about winning arguments; it should be about trying to figure out the best solutions by presenting arguments, admitting problems and concerns, and listening to and responding to the concerns and arguments of others.
