General Studies 2023 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Discuss

Q12

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.

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

सरकार के एक मंत्रालय में आप जिम्मेदार पद पर हैं। एक दिन सुबह आपके 11 साल के बेटे के स्कूल से फोन आया कि आपको प्रिंसिपल से मिलने आना है। आप स्कूल गए और अपने बेटे को प्रिंसिपल के कार्यालय में देखा। प्रिंसिपल ने आपको सूचित किया कि जिस समय कक्षाएं चल रही थीं, उस समय आपका बेटा मैदान में बेमतलब घूमता हुआ पाया गया था। कक्षा-शिक्षक आपको बताते हैं कि आपका बेटा इधर अकेला पड़ गया है और कक्षा में सवालों का जवाब नहीं देता है, वह हाल ही में आयोजित फुटबॉल ट्रायल में भी अच्छा प्रदर्शन करने में असमर्थ रहा है। आप अपने बेटे को स्कूल से ले आते हैं और शाम को अपनी पत्नी के साथ बेटे के बदलते व्यवहार के कारणों के बारे में जानने की कोशिश करते हैं। बार-बार मनाने के बाद, आपके बेटे ने साज़ा किया कि कुछ बच्चे कक्षा में और छात्रों के व्हाट्सएप ग्रुप में उसे बौना, मूर्ख और मेंढक कहकर उसका मज़ाक उड़ा रहे थे। वह आपको कुछ बच्चों के नाम बताता है जो मुख्य दोषी हैं लेकिन आपसे मामले को शांत रहने देने की विनती करता है। कुछ दिनों बाद, एक खेल आयोजन के दौरान, जहाँ आप और आपकी पत्नी अपने बेटे को खेलते हुए देखने गए थे, आपके एक सहकर्मी का बेटा आपको एक वीडियो दिखाता है जिसमें छात्रों ने आपके बेटे का व्यंग्यचित्र बनाया है। इसके अलावा, वह उन दोषी बच्चों की ओर इशारा करता है जो स्टैंड में बैठे थे। आप जान-बूझकर अपने बेटे के साथ उनके पास से गुजरते हैं और घर लौटते हैं। अगले दिन, सोशल मीडिया पर आपको, आपके बेटे को और यहाँ तक कि आपकी पत्नी को भी बदनाम करने वाला एक वीडियो मिलता है, जिसमें कहा गया है कि आप खेल के मैदान पर बच्चों को शारीरिक रूप से परेशान करने में लगे हुए हैं। वीडियो सोशल मीडिया पर वायरल हो गया। आपके मित्रों और सहकर्मियों ने पूरा विवरण जानने के लिए आपको फोन करना शुरू कर दिया। आपके एक जूनियर ने आपको एक जवाबी वीडियो बनाने की सलाह दी जिसमें पृष्ठभूमि दी जाए और बताया जाए कि मैदान पर कुछ भी नहीं हुआ है। बदले में आपने एक वीडियो पोस्ट किया जिसे आपने खेल आयोजन के दौरान बनाया था, जिसमें संभावित गड़बड़ी करने वालों की पहचान की गई थी जो आपके बेटे की परेशानी के लिए जिम्मेदार थे। आपने यह भी बताया है कि मैदान में वास्तव में क्या हुआ था और सोशल मीडिया के दुरुपयोग के प्रतिकूल प्रभावों को सामने लाने का प्रयास किया है। (a) उपर्युक्त केस स्टडी को आधार बनाकर सोशल मीडिया के उपयोग में शामिल नैतिक मुद्दों पर चर्चा कीजिए। (b) अपने परिवार के खिलाफ फर्जी प्रचार का मुकाबला करने के लिए तथ्यों को सामने रखने हेतु आपके द्वारा सोशल मीडिया का उपयोग करने के लाभ और हानियों पर चर्चा कीजिए।

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 General Studies questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'discuss' requires a balanced examination of multiple dimensions with reasoning. For part (a), spend ~45% of the word budget (110 words) examining ethical issues like anonymity, cyberbullying, privacy invasion, and digital vigilantism. For part (b), allocate ~45% (110 words) weighing pros (truth restoration, awareness) against cons (escalation, misuse of official position, privacy violation). Reserve ~10% (30 words) for a nuanced conclusion on ethical digital citizenship. Structure: brief context → ethical analysis for (a) → balanced evaluation for (b) → forward-looking conclusion.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Identifies anonymity and deindividuation as drivers of cyberbullying; discusses breach of dignity and psychological harm to minors; notes violation of privacy through unauthorized video recording and viral dissemination.
  • For (a): Analyses ethical issues of fake propaganda, character assassination, and the erosion of trust in public officials; references Information Technology Act provisions on cyberbullying.
  • For (b): Evaluates pros—countering misinformation, protecting family reputation, creating awareness about cyberbullying, using evidence-based rebuttal.
  • For (b): Evaluates cons—potential misuse of official position for personal grievances, exposing minors to public shaming, risk of escalation into cyber-warfare, blurring public-private boundaries.
  • Synthesizes both parts to propose ethical alternatives: reporting to school authorities, legal recourse under POCSO/IT Act, platform-level moderation, and restorative justice approaches rather than retaliatory posting.

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4Demonstrates clear grasp that 'discuss' requires multi-faceted examination with balanced arguments; for (a) explores ethical dimensions comprehensively without mere listing; for (b) presents reasoned pros-cons rather than one-sided advocacy; maintains analytical distance without becoming emotionally partisan.Addresses both parts but treats 'discuss' as description; one part stronger than other; limited balancing of arguments; some confusion between ethical analysis and personal opinion.Misinterprets directive as 'enumerate' or 'narrate'; ignores either part (a) or (b); purely emotional response without analytical framework; fails to distinguish ethical issues from factual narration.
Content depth & accuracy20%4Accurately identifies specific ethical frameworks—deontology (duty-based), consequentialism, virtue ethics; correctly applies concepts like informed consent, digital footprint permanence, minor's right to dignity; references relevant legal provisions (IT Act 2000 Section 66A implications, POCSO Act protection); distinguishes cyberbullying from traditional bullying.Identifies some ethical issues correctly but mixes concepts; superficial legal references; conflates cyberbullying with general teasing; limited framework application; minor factual errors on digital ethics.Misidentifies core ethical issues; confuses perpetrator and victim ethics; no legal framework awareness; factually incorrect on social media dynamics; irrelevant content on general parenting or education policy.
Structure & flow20%4Clear demarcation between (a) and (b) with visible sub-headings or paragraph transitions; logical progression from identification → analysis → evaluation → synthesis; seamless integration of case facts with ethical principles; conclusion bridges both sub-parts coherently.Both parts present but boundaries blurred; some logical gaps between paragraphs; conclusion generic or merely summarizes; occasional repetition between (a) and (b); acceptable but not elegant flow.No visible structure; random arrangement of points; missing either part entirely; conclusion absent or contradictory to body; severe word imbalance (e.g., 200 words on (a), 50 on (b)).
Examples / case-law / data20%4Cites relevant Indian case law (e.g., Shreya Singhal v. Union of India on free speech limits; Prajwala case on cyberbullying); references specific provisions (IT Act Sections 66E, 67, 67A; POCSO Act Section 13); mentions real instances like Bois Locker Room case or similar cyberbullying incidents; uses platform-specific examples (WhatsApp group dynamics, viral video mechanics).Generic reference to 'cyber laws' without specificity; mentions IT Act without sections; one relevant example cited; international examples without Indian context; case names incorrect or misattributed.No examples or case law; irrelevant examples from unrelated domains; fabricated case names; confuses criminal law with civil remedies; examples contradict the ethical analysis.
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4Synthesizes both parts to propose institutional responses (school counselling, cyber cells, platform accountability) rather than individual retaliation; reflects on civil servant's ethical obligation to model digital citizenship; suggests preventive measures (digital literacy, parental mediation); acknowledges complexity without false resolution; demonstrates mature ethical reasoning.Safe conclusion restating main points; limited synthesis between (a) and (b); generic recommendations on 'strict laws'; no reflection on civil servant's special responsibilities; avoids difficult trade-offs.No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion contradicts body analysis; purely emotional closure ('justice must prevail'); unrealistic recommendations; ignores the ethical dilemma entirely; advocates vigilantism or complete withdrawal from social media without reasoning.

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from General Studies 2023 GS Paper IV