IB Digital Society Past Papers & Drilling (Paper 1): The a/b/c Structured Question with Answers

Question 1

(a) 6 marks = three knowledge points, 2 marks each
(1) Algorithm: a defined set of steps converting inputs into outputs (for example a ranking rule). (2) Recommender system: predicts the content most likely to be engaged with, using behavioural signals (dwell time, clicks, shares) and data from similar users. (3) Process: collect signals, rank candidate content, expose it, then collect new signals – a feedback loop whose parameters the platform sets, not the user.
(b) 6 marks = two points, 3 marks each (each with an example)
(1) Shift in reference groups: identity reference moves from the geographic community to interest communities, giving young people recognition (e.g. a Hong Kong secondary student finding peers through a local skateboarding or anime community). (2) Homogenisation and amplification: highly engaging forms are recommended again and again, pushing self-expression towards one format (e.g. one dance challenge sweeping a whole year group within weeks). Noting the limitation (users remix content or run a second account to resist) supports the full 6 marks.
(c) 8 marks = level descriptors (0 / 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6 / 7-8)
For 7-8 you need both sides, explicit evaluative criteria and a conclusion. Opportunity: discovery costs fall and marginal interests find a community. Harm: attention is commodified, comparison pressure rises, extreme content is amplified, and data asymmetry leaves users unable to argue their own case. Criteria: strength of evidence (opaque platform data makes causation hard to establish), time scale (short-term connection versus long-term well-being) and differences between groups (age, language, socio-economic background). The conclusion must say how far, not merely list the two sides.

Question 2

(a) 6 marks
(1) Data: raw, uninterpreted symbols and records (numbers, text, images) that only become useful information once organised and interpreted. (2)-(3) How the ratings are produced: after each order the customer scores delivery time, condition of the food and attitude, while the platform automatically logs completion time, acceptance rate, cancellation rate and location trail; those records are then combined into a public star rating and score.
(b) 6 marks = two points, 3 marks each
(1) Algorithmic management: the score determines access to orders and their priority, so power moves from human instructions to a rating rule that cannot be negotiated – a rider cannot ask who gave a low score, or contest it on the spot. (2) Asymmetry and visibility: the platform sees every trail and every customer comment while the rider sees only their own aggregate, so bargaining power falls; conversely riders win back some voice by screenshotting, organising in groups and exposing platform data through the media.
(c) 8 marks = both sides, evaluation, conclusion
Empowerment: scores can be carried across platforms, used as evidence when negotiating for orders and pay, and used collectively in complaints. Control: score-based rewards and penalties push workers into self-surveillance, longer hours and higher risk. Criteria: who sets the metrics (unilaterally or by negotiation), the incentive structure (whether data can be verified and appealed) and whether the rider has any alternative. A good conclusion states that under present arrangements control outweighs empowerment, while noting that this is not inherent in the technology.

Question 3

(a) 6 marks
(1) Addressing and name resolution: the domain name is first resolved into an IP address by the domain name system. (2) Packet delivery: the content is split into packets that may travel by different routes, forwarded hop by hop through routers and reassembled on arrival. (3) Distributed infrastructure: content usually sits in several data centres or content-delivery nodes, so a user is normally served from the nearest one.
(b) 6 marks = two points, 3 marks each
(1) Immediate loss of access: school, library and self-study resources become unavailable at the same moment, interrupting revision before or after lessons, leaving offline material as the only source. (2) Indirect loss of knowledge: small shops cannot take electronic payments or compare prices, newsrooms cannot publish and citizens cannot verify rumours, so both circulation and checking of knowledge fall; over time some people may simply abandon the habit of looking things up.
(c) 8 marks = both sides, evaluation, conclusion
For: it can stop violent or disaster-related rumour spreading, protect infrastructure and coordinate rescue in an emergency. Against: restrictions often exceed what is necessary, hit people unconnected with the security issue (patients, students, small traders), lack independent oversight and a time limit, and can conceal abuses. Criteria: proportionality of means to end, whether there is a time limit and judicial review, whether a less intrusive alternative exists (blocking a specific account, ordering removal of content) and who decides what counts as public safety. The conclusion should state the conditions under which it could be accepted and note that the default should be a justified exception.

Question 4

(a) 6 marks
(1) Defining features: sensing the environment (sensors), making a judgement about the input (decision rules or a model) and acting with limited or no human instruction (actuators); the degree of autonomy ranges from a fixed routine to adapting in an open environment. (2)-(3) Real application: for example a pharmacy or ward delivery robot (preparing medication against the prescription, taking it to the bedside and alerting a nurse to anything unusual), or a social companion robot (medication reminders, leading simple exercise, passing a record of the interaction to family and clinicians).
(b) 6 marks = two points, 3 marks each
(1) Components change: repetitive tasks once done by a human carer (meals, reminders, measurements) move to devices and software, so the human role shifts from direct care to supervision, judgement and emotional response, and the system gains a data layer of records and alerts. (2) Interactions change: a three-way interaction appears between the older adult, the machine and the carer or family, and the feedback loop shortens from hours to minutes, yet direct contact between the older adult and family may fall, and the system bottleneck moves from staffing to device reliability and data handling.
(c) 8 marks = both sides, evaluation, conclusion
For replacement: chronic staff shortages, night shifts and repetitive work, and standardisation that reduces human error. Against: care is fundamentally relational and about dignity (judgement, comfort, company at the end of life), which machines struggle to provide; data surveillance and accountability (who is responsible when the machine fails) add further problems. Criteria: measurable outcomes (adherence to medication, falls) versus outcomes that are hard to measure (feeling understood and respected), the wishes of older adults and families, and cost and sustainability. The conclusion should separate replacing repetitive tasks from replacing relational care, and state that present evidence supports the former rather than the latter.

Question 5

12 marks = level descriptors (0 / 1-2 / 3-4 / 5-6 / 7-8 / 9-12 bands)
A sound answer will: (1) define the key terms – global well-being covers health, education, safety and political participation, not income alone; (2) support the claim – telemedicine and online education reach remote areas, mobile payments let the unbanked receive money, and disaster warnings and information flows reduce deaths; (3) present the counter-case (essential) – unequal infrastructure and electricity, language and digital-skill gaps, data extraction that moves value abroad, and platform monopolies that shrink local industries; (4) respond to the counter-claims – distinguish access from effective use and average improvement from widening gaps within groups; (5) conclude by stating the conditions (affordability, local-language content, regulation) under which the gaps really do narrow.

Question 6

12 marks = both sides, judgement criteria, conclusion
(1) Case for self-regulation: technology changes faster than legislation, regulators lack expertise, companies hold the data and engineering capacity and can respond immediately, and one global standard avoids fragmentation across countries. (2) Weaknesses of self-regulation: conflicting incentives (revenue depends on engagement and data collection), limited transparency and accountability, no route of appeal when rights such as expression or privacy are restricted, and no effective enforcement. (3) Case for government regulation: it carries enforcement power and legitimacy and can create independent oversight and remedy. (4) Risks of government regulation: it can be used to expand surveillance, restrict speech in the name of security, and is hard to apply across borders. (5) Criteria: the level of protection (is there appeal and remedy?), who is accountable, and enforceability and consistency; the conclusion should say that neither alone is sufficient and argue for co-regulation – a legal floor plus independent audit plus company disclosure – rather than a choice between the two.