Opens in a new tab
Join Anantam IAS Channel on Telegram
GS Paper 4 20 marks · 250w 20 min Hard

You hold a responsible position in a ministry in the government. One day in the morning you received a call from the school of your 11-year-old son that you are required to come and meet the Principal. You proceed to the school and find your son in the Principal’s office. The Principal informs you that your son had been found wandering aimlessly in the grounds during the time classes were in progress. The class teacher further informs you that your son has lately become a loner and did not respond to questions in the class, he had also been unable to perform well in the football trials held recently. You bring your son back from the school and in the evening, you along with your wife try to find out the reasons for your son’s changed behaviour. After repeated cajoling, your son shares that some children had been making fun of him in the class as well as in the WhatsApp group of the students by calling him stunted, duh and a frog. He tells you the names of a few children who are the main culprits but pleads with you to let the matter rest. After a few days, during a sporting event, where you and your wife have gone to watch your son play, one of your colleague’s son shows you a video in which students have caricatured your son. Further, he also points out to the perpetrators who were sitting in the stands. You purposefully walk past them with your son and go home. Next day, you find on social media, a video denigrating you, your son and even your wife, stating that you engaged in physical bullying of children on the sports field. The video became viral on social media. Your friends and colleagues began calling you to find out the details. One of your juniors advised you to make a counter video giving the background and explaining that nothing had happened on the field. You, in turn posted a video which you have captured during the sporting event, identifying the likely perpetrators who were responsible for your son’s predicament. You have also narrated what has actually happened in the field and made attempts to bring out the adverse effects of the misuse of social media. (a) Based on the above case study, discuss the ethical issues involved in the use of social media. (b) Discuss the pros and cons of using social media by you to put across the facts to counter the fake propaganda against your family.

Subtopic: Case Study · social media ethics and cyberbullying

Model answer outline

How to structure your answer

Brief facts → stakeholders → (a) ethical issues in social-media use → (b) pros and cons of the counter-video → way forward (institutional redressal)
Full model answer

Written within the word limit

239 words · target 250 words · 20 min

Brief facts

A senior government official's 11-year-old son is bullied at school and on a WhatsApp group. After a video falsely accusing the official's family of bullying children goes viral, the official posts a counter-video identifying the child perpetrators and narrating what actually happened.

Stakeholders

  • The official and his family (reputation and dignity).
  • His son, a bullied minor.
  • The accused children, who are also minors.
  • The school and the wider public.

(a) Ethical issues in the use of social media

  • Cyberbullying and its harm to a child's mental health and dignity.
  • Rapid virality of unverified misinformation and defamation.
  • Anonymity that emboldens harassment and enables mob justice.
  • Privacy of minors and the duty to protect children (spirit of the JJ and POCSO Acts).

(b) Pros and cons of the counter-video

Pros: it sets the record straight, defends the family's reputation, and highlights both the misuse of social media and the reality of bullying.

Cons: publicly identifying minor children violates their privacy and dignity and becomes another form of bullying; it escalates the conflict, sets a poor example of a public servant choosing emotion over process, and may invite legal liability. A wiser course was to preserve the evidence and approach the school authorities, parents, the cyber-cell and, if needed, the police or child-welfare mechanisms, rather than wage a public video war involving children.

Way forward

Responsible digital conduct — verification before sharing, empathy for the vulnerable, and reliance on institutional grievance redressal instead of vigilante publicity.

Key points

What an examiner expects to see

  • Cyberbullying harms a minor's mental health and dignity
  • Virality spreads unverified misinformation and defamation rapidly
  • Identifying minor perpetrators in a counter-video violates their privacy and repeats the wrong
  • A public servant should model restraint and due process over emotion
  • Preserve evidence and use school, cyber-cell and child-welfare channels
  • Way forward: verification, empathy and institutional redressal over vigilante publicity
Examples to use

Concrete cases, schemes and judgments

  • Cyberbullying provisions under the IT Act and child-protection framework
  • Juvenile Justice Act and POCSO spirit protecting minors' identity and dignity
  • Cyber-crime cells and school anti-bullying grievance mechanisms
  • Viral misinformation cases showing the harm of unverified sharing
Keywords / terms

Terminology to weave into the answer

cyberbullyingmisinformationprivacy of minorsdigital ethicsgrievance redressal

Share this answer