Sample Solution
One example of how social trends can present both opportunities and threats to businesses in high-tech industries is the use of social media. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., have become increasingly popular over the years and are now used by millions of people on a daily basis (Statista 2020). This presents an opportunity for businesses to reach large audiences in order to promote their products or services. Companies can utilize these platforms by creating targeted advertisement campaigns or utilizing influencers who already have established presence within certain communities—allowing them access potential customers they may not have been able to previously (Vrohidis et al., 2019).
However, while there are many advantages associated with using social media it also poses significant risks as well. Since these networks are open public forums anyone can post comments or reviews regarding anything; this means companies must remain vigilant at all times and respond quickly if negative feedback arises (Wirtz et al., 2016). Additionally, because information shared via these channels travels rapidly any mistakes made by company representatives could be spread fast–potentially leading to reputational damage that could take months recover from (Sagiroglu & Sengul 2017). Finally, due nature of online communications users tend be less likely filter what they say before posting so companies must always be aware of how their messages may interpreted amongst different demographics which could lead unintended consequences if proper precautions aren’t taken.
Overall ,social trends such as those found on social media can provide great benefits for businesses operating within the high-tech industry but also come with potential dangers that must addressed properly at all times. Companies should approach these platforms with caution when looking ways increase awareness about their brand while also remaining mindful about actions being taken so any misunderstandings may be avoided -allowing them reap maximum rewards from investing into this type medium.
e army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can
