Facebook: The Erosion of Privacy and Personal Freedom for Sale
EssayChat / Dec 30, 2016
Online social networking platforms increasingly provide valued communication and entertainment functionality to Internet users. In 2011, the number of Facebook users number 687 million and Facebook founder, Mark Zuckerberg, confidently predicted that his site would soon achieve the milestone of one billion worldwide users. The recent explosion of Facebook use has prompted considerable concern from government and private actors about the privacy of Facebook users. Sites such as Facebook collect valuable aggregate data from their users, providing businesses with a new source of information about their prospective consumer. While regulatory approaches intended to protect users from data gathering may initially seem appealing, they are not feasible under the present circumstances. The failure of privacy laws to gain political support illustrates the fact that most Facebook and other Internet users do not want the government to intervene. Rather, "coupon tradeoff" arguments identifying consumers as benefiting from data aggregation activities are correct and persuasive for savvy web surfers who recognize the value of social media data mining. Ultimately, the responsibility to maintain privacy in an increasingly open virtual world lies with the consumers. Users of Facebook and other social media platforms can best protect themselves from being taken advantage of, without relying upon imperfect government cudgels to offer what can only be, at best, a false sense of security.
The recent attempt and failure to pass legislation aimed at regulating the Internet illustrates the inability of the federal government to provide a solution to Facebook users concerned with a violation of their privacy rights. In May, 2012, the Protect IP Act (PIP) was introduced by a group of U.S. Senators. A similar bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was introduced into the House of Representatives at the same time. The aim of these two bills was to address "the growing and legitimate problems of digital piracy; use of the internet to disseminate illegal and potentially dangerous items, such as counterfeit prescription drugs; and the 'rogue website' traffic in these illegal and infringing activities". These bills were intended to support existing copyright laws and to avoid the easy distribution of copyrighted materials over the Internet. To supporters of the bills, legislation and enforcement seemed like a commonsense mechanism for regulating the internet.
However, PIPA and SOPA were instantly controversial. Internet users quickly asserted their First Amendment rights to free speech. Opponents argued that the proposed laws would chill free expression through the threat of punishment. They also argued that the government could not adequately distinguish between actual piracy and genuine, compassionate sharing. In response to the threat of the passage of these legislations, major Internet companies, including Wikipedia, took their sites down on January 18, 2012, replacing them instead with black page that urged visitors to reject the proposed laws. Not surprisingly, the public's response was overwhelming and the bills were not passed by Congress.
This recent example is significant to the consideration of the issue of privacy on the internet because it demonstrates a strong foundation for cooperation between Internet sites and Internet users. Given the strong negative response to the government's attempt to protect copyright infringement on the internet, it can be logically inferred that legislation intended to protect user privacy would meet with a similar response. Without a clear explanation for the need of such a law, Internet users would likely again side against new legislation with their favorite Internet companies.
Furthermore, Facebook has proven itself empirically willing to respond to the privacy interests of its users. At times, users have protected Facebook's treatment of user information. "The site has been criticized in the west for its approach to users' privacy, with repeated protests about the way in which controls on data access are relaxed". For example, 2011, the company utilized facial recognition software to aid in the tagging of photographs that led some to be concerned about whether the privacy of Facebook users was being properly protected.
However, instead of ignoring these concerns, Facebook has empirically responded by creating new privacy safeguards for users. Oresokovic explains, "Facebook said it would introduce new tools to give users more control to limit how much of their profile information is publicly accessible, following criticism by privacy advocates about certain new Facebook features." This example is important because it establishes a precedent for future company response to user concerns.
Ultimately, privacy concerns are likely inevitable in the case of a site like Facebook where pictures of real people are commonly shared. Therefore, the judgment of privacy should not be whether those privacy concerns exist but rather whether the company is willing to act independently to assuage privacy concerns. If Facebook were a company that ignored the concerns of its users, then government action would be warranted. However, Facebook appears to be the opposite. Corporate leadership listens to the concerns of Facebook users and creates new protocols when necessary to explicitly address privacy concerns.
Therefore, the combination of public support for Facebook and Facebook's acknowledgement of public privacy concerns undermine the call for government action. If the government attempted to pass legislation, it would expect to get both public backlash and resistance from Facebook and other social media sites. The government would be unlikely to gather the support necessary to pass privacy laws. If a law were passed, it would be so controversial that enforcement would prove difficult, if not impossible. In the worst case scenario, a company like Facebook might respond by moving overseas. Americans would lose their jobs, the nation would lose the tax revenues associated with the company and user privacy would still not be enhanced.
The inability of the government to intercede due to political concerns then shifts responsibility to the users. If users are not willing to support government intervention, they must safeguard their own privacy. Facebook users appear willing to accept this responsibility, as illustrated by the previous protests raised in response to privacy concerns.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that many users appreciate some invasion of privacy. They find the advertising and marketing strategies enabled by Facebook to be efficient options that enable their spending in a desirable manner. If users don't feel that they are being taken advantage of, is there any real harm to some privacy invasion? The answer appears to be no.
In conclusion, social media sites, like Facebook, provide hours of entertainment to millions of users worldwide. However, they come with a cost: the privacy of the users. However, past experience demonstrates the willingness of users to accept some loss of privacy in exchange for the benefits associated with Facebook. More importantly, Facebook users can and do voice their concerns over the company's policies. Their protests have caused the company to change its stance and provide more privacy options. If the present system isn't broken, there is no reason for the government to become involved.
References
Arthur, Charles. "Has Facebook peaked?" The Guardian.
Custom Written. E-Commerce Marketing and Strategy. Online. customwritten.com/example-papers/ecommerce-research-strategies
Oreskovic, A. Facebook '09 revenue neared $800 million. Reuters.
Pike, G. How Far is Too Far: The SOPA Debate. Information.
The Battle over Privacy
The recent attempt and failure to pass legislation aimed at regulating the Internet illustrates the inability of the federal government to provide a solution to Facebook users concerned with a violation of their privacy rights. In May, 2012, the Protect IP Act (PIP) was introduced by a group of U.S. Senators. A similar bill, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was introduced into the House of Representatives at the same time. The aim of these two bills was to address "the growing and legitimate problems of digital piracy; use of the internet to disseminate illegal and potentially dangerous items, such as counterfeit prescription drugs; and the 'rogue website' traffic in these illegal and infringing activities". These bills were intended to support existing copyright laws and to avoid the easy distribution of copyrighted materials over the Internet. To supporters of the bills, legislation and enforcement seemed like a commonsense mechanism for regulating the internet.However, PIPA and SOPA were instantly controversial. Internet users quickly asserted their First Amendment rights to free speech. Opponents argued that the proposed laws would chill free expression through the threat of punishment. They also argued that the government could not adequately distinguish between actual piracy and genuine, compassionate sharing. In response to the threat of the passage of these legislations, major Internet companies, including Wikipedia, took their sites down on January 18, 2012, replacing them instead with black page that urged visitors to reject the proposed laws. Not surprisingly, the public's response was overwhelming and the bills were not passed by Congress.
This recent example is significant to the consideration of the issue of privacy on the internet because it demonstrates a strong foundation for cooperation between Internet sites and Internet users. Given the strong negative response to the government's attempt to protect copyright infringement on the internet, it can be logically inferred that legislation intended to protect user privacy would meet with a similar response. Without a clear explanation for the need of such a law, Internet users would likely again side against new legislation with their favorite Internet companies.
Furthermore, Facebook has proven itself empirically willing to respond to the privacy interests of its users. At times, users have protected Facebook's treatment of user information. "The site has been criticized in the west for its approach to users' privacy, with repeated protests about the way in which controls on data access are relaxed". For example, 2011, the company utilized facial recognition software to aid in the tagging of photographs that led some to be concerned about whether the privacy of Facebook users was being properly protected.
However, instead of ignoring these concerns, Facebook has empirically responded by creating new privacy safeguards for users. Oresokovic explains, "Facebook said it would introduce new tools to give users more control to limit how much of their profile information is publicly accessible, following criticism by privacy advocates about certain new Facebook features." This example is important because it establishes a precedent for future company response to user concerns.
Ultimately, privacy concerns are likely inevitable in the case of a site like Facebook where pictures of real people are commonly shared. Therefore, the judgment of privacy should not be whether those privacy concerns exist but rather whether the company is willing to act independently to assuage privacy concerns. If Facebook were a company that ignored the concerns of its users, then government action would be warranted. However, Facebook appears to be the opposite. Corporate leadership listens to the concerns of Facebook users and creates new protocols when necessary to explicitly address privacy concerns.
Therefore, the combination of public support for Facebook and Facebook's acknowledgement of public privacy concerns undermine the call for government action. If the government attempted to pass legislation, it would expect to get both public backlash and resistance from Facebook and other social media sites. The government would be unlikely to gather the support necessary to pass privacy laws. If a law were passed, it would be so controversial that enforcement would prove difficult, if not impossible. In the worst case scenario, a company like Facebook might respond by moving overseas. Americans would lose their jobs, the nation would lose the tax revenues associated with the company and user privacy would still not be enhanced.
The inability of the government to intercede due to political concerns then shifts responsibility to the users. If users are not willing to support government intervention, they must safeguard their own privacy. Facebook users appear willing to accept this responsibility, as illustrated by the previous protests raised in response to privacy concerns.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that many users appreciate some invasion of privacy. They find the advertising and marketing strategies enabled by Facebook to be efficient options that enable their spending in a desirable manner. If users don't feel that they are being taken advantage of, is there any real harm to some privacy invasion? The answer appears to be no.
In conclusion, social media sites, like Facebook, provide hours of entertainment to millions of users worldwide. However, they come with a cost: the privacy of the users. However, past experience demonstrates the willingness of users to accept some loss of privacy in exchange for the benefits associated with Facebook. More importantly, Facebook users can and do voice their concerns over the company's policies. Their protests have caused the company to change its stance and provide more privacy options. If the present system isn't broken, there is no reason for the government to become involved.
References
Arthur, Charles. "Has Facebook peaked?" The Guardian.
Custom Written. E-Commerce Marketing and Strategy. Online. customwritten.com/example-papers/ecommerce-research-strategies
Oreskovic, A. Facebook '09 revenue neared $800 million. Reuters.
Pike, G. How Far is Too Far: The SOPA Debate. Information.