tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/facebook-scandal-52655/articlesFacebook scandal – The Conversation2024-01-10T16:34:08Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2208052024-01-10T16:34:08Z2024-01-10T16:34:08ZPost Office will struggle to rebuild brand trust – as Boeing and Facebook scandals show<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/568654/original/file-20240110-16-jk1eme.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C4207%2C3246&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/people-line-outside-post-office-cambridge-1865055061">Edward Crawford/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Post Office, once an <a href="https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EJM-11-2014-0691/full/html">iconic British brand</a> has fallen from grace following the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-post-office-scandal-is-possibly-the-largest-miscarriage-of-justice-in-uk-history-and-its-not-over-yet-211217">Horizon IT Scandal</a>. With over 11,500 branches, it’s the <a href="https://corporate.postoffice.co.uk/#:%7E:text=With%20over%2011%2C500%20branches%2C%20we,retail%20franchise%20network%20in%20Europe.&text=An%20anchor%20of%20UK%20communities,people%20who%20rely%20on%20us.">largest retail franchise</a> network in Europe, offering a variety of products – not just postal, but cash and banking, foreign exchange and government services. Post offices are also often an important social hub for communities, not to mention offering a chance to run a vital local business for people around the UK.</p>
<p>The Horizon system, developed by Fujitsu, was introduced in 1999 to help branches manage transactions, accounts and stocktaking. It has since been revealed as faulty, causing account shortfalls often initially blamed on those people running the branches (known as sub-postmasters and mistresses). As a result of the system’s errors, these workers were accused of fraud and theft, and wrongly prosecuted. A <a href="https://www.itv.com/watch/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office/10a0469/10a0469a0001">new ITV four-part drama</a> has put a spotlight on the scandal, renewing pressure on the government Post Office to <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-67926661">exonerate and compensate</a> hundreds of former workers.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mr-bates-vs-the-post-office-depicts-one-of-the-uks-worst-miscarriages-of-justice-heres-why-so-many-victims-didnt-speak-out-220513">Mr Bates vs The Post Office depicts one of the UK's worst miscarriages of justice: here’s why so many victims didn’t speak out</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>One of the <a href="https://www.onepostoffice.co.uk/secure/latest-news/our-business/brands-we-trust-where-we-sit-in-the-rankings/">UK’s most trusted brands</a> only a few years ago, the Post Office has since drawn near-universal ire
<a href="https://www.itv.com/news/2021-04-23/post-office-postmasters-horizon-court-of-appeal">for its treatment of its sub-postmasters and mistresses</a>. The ITV show has only reignited the controversy.</p>
<p>Trust is crucial to the relationship brands develop with consumers. These connections help attract new customers, but also create long-term buying habits. It takes time and effort to build this kind of trust, but it can crumble in an instant, as major brands like Facebook, Boeing and Volkswagen – and now the Post Office – have found. Rebuilding this trust after a scandal takes even more time and effort and the results can be mixed.</p>
<p>Brand trust is multifaceted but can be thought of as the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257541748_Does_Having_an_Ethical_Brand_Matter_The_Influence_of_Consumer_Perceived_Ethicality_on_Trust_Affect_and_Loyalty">confidence, reliability and credibility</a> that consumers and other stakeholders – such as investors, suppliers, employees and even competitors – associate with a brand. It reflects the belief that a brand is competent, consistent, honest and takes responsibility for delivering on its promises and acting in the best interest of consumers. </p>
<p>People can <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/209515">develop strong emotional attachments to brands</a> and trust is typically <a href="https://hbr.org/2019/07/the-trust-crisis">at the core</a> of these relationships. Trust underpins people’s commitment and <a href="https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/pubfiles/593/The_Chain_of_Effects.pdf">loyalty</a> to a brand. And when a brand earns people’s trust, it can be rewarded with more sales, positive word of mouth, and long-term custom, <a href="https://www.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/uk/aboutadobe/newsroom/pdfs/051121-future-of-marketing.pdf">according to research</a>. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227895249_Examining_the_Antecedents_and_Consequences_of_Corporate_Reputation_A_Customer_Perspective">Academic studies also show</a> the importance of trust to corporate reputation. </p>
<h2>From hero to zero</h2>
<p>So, when this trust is broken, it can be highly damaging for a brand, as big names have found in the past. </p>
<p>In 2018, social media platform Facebook was at the centre of a major data breach. Governments around the world questioned the company’s commitment to data privacy after <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/08/facebook-to-contact-the-87-million-users-affected-by-data-breach">87 million users</a> were confirmed to have had their personal data shared with Cambridge Analytica. The political consultant was using the data to target voters during the 2016 US presidential election. </p>
<p>Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg apologised in a Facebook post acknowledging “a breach of trust between Facebook and the people who share their data with us and expect us to protect it”. But his initial response – <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/21/mark-zuckerberg-response-facebook-cambridge-analytica#:%7E:text=The%20Facebook%20CEO%20broke%20his,expect%20us%20to%20protect%20it%E2%80%9D.">deafening silence for five days</a> – probably didn’t help shore up consumer trust in the brand. </p>
<p>The scandal had huge implications for data privacy and governments acted swiftly to pass laws and regulations to protect consumers, including the EU’s <a href="https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/digital-services-act-package">Digital Services Act</a>. In the aftermath of scandal, Americans were also <a href="https://theconversation.com/cambridge-analytica-scandal-facebooks-user-engagement-and-trust-decline-93814">less likely to trust</a> Facebook. </p>
<p>More recently, aeroplane maker Boeing’s reputation for quality has been decimated. First, a damning <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11893274/">Netflix documentary</a> examined the 2018 and 2019 crashes of two 737-MAX jets and the company’s choices about <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/feb/22/downfall-the-case-against-boeing-netflix-documentary-737-max">passenger safety</a>. Boeing spent <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/we-regain-trust-one-aircraft-at-a-time-says-boeing-boss-dave-calhoun-998fwztnv#:%7E:text=of%20Alba%202023-,We%20regain%20trust%20one%20aircraft%20at%20a,says%20Boeing%20boss%20Dave%20Calhoun&text=Boeing%20has%20spent%20four%20long,its%20bestselling%20737%20Max%20aircraft.">four years rebuilding trust</a> after <a href="https://www.boeing.com/737-max-updates/official-statements/">the two fatal crashes</a>. But the recent <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67915771">mid-air cabin panel blow out</a> of a 737 MAX 9 has seen Boeing hit the headlines again, further damaging the company image and leaving customers, pilots, crew and regulators asking why they should trust the company. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vt-IJkUbAxY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>At an all-staff meeting shortly after the incident, <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/09/business/boeing-safety-meeting-737-max-factory/index.html">CEO Dave Calhoun told employees</a> that Boeing must acknowledge “our mistake” and has promised total transparency. A video of <a href="https://www.boeing.com/737-9-updates/index.page#:%7E:text=hosted%20a%20meeting%20with%20all%20employees">his opening statement</a> was also posted on the company website.</p>
<p>Volkswagen experienced similar trust issues after a scandal dubbed “emissionsgate” or <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34324772">“the diesel dupe”</a>. The car company is still struggling after the US environmental regulator <a href="https://www.epa.gov/vw/learn-about-volkswagen-violations">accused the company</a> of cheating on vehicle emissions tests. Customers <a href="https://www.thedrum.com/news/2015/09/23/has-volkswagen-s-emissions-scandal-smashed-brand-beyond-repair">lost trust</a> in the brand and the company, after admitting fault, also had to pay billions of dollars in fines and compensation claims. </p>
<p>“Our most important task in 2016 is to win back trust,” Volkswagen CEO Matthias Mueller said in a January 2016 speech at an auto industry event.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/t7ne3cwqI4A?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Rebuilding trust in a brand</h2>
<p>In the aftermath of a brand crisis, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13527266.2023.2172601">communication</a> in the form of this kind of brand apology is key. But <a href="https://theconversation.com/boeing-is-doing-crisis-management-all-wrong-heres-what-a-company-needs-to-do-to-restore-the-publics-trust-114051">Boeing</a> is still being accused of doing crisis management “all wrong”, and Facebook has also been <a href="https://insigniacrisis.com/2019-facebook-a-lesson-in-crisis-management">criticised</a> for its scandal response. </p>
<p>The speed of the response matters. An effective crisis management approach typically involves company leaders issuing swift public statements – often filmed – acknowledging responsibility and full transparency about the mistakes that lead to the scandal and the remedial steps.</p>
<p>Trust can be rebuilt but it’s a long-term process. Some <a href="https://fabrikbrands.com/brands-and-companies-that-have-repositioned-themselves/">companies</a> such as Starbucks and Gucci have successfully <a href="https://press.farm/brand-repositioning-strategies-rebuild-trust/">repositioned their brands</a> to alter the perceived image held by consumers. This involves changing marketing elements such as prices or promotional methods to attract new customers and refresh the brand image. In some cases, it involves a complete rebrand with a new logo and tagline.</p>
<p>The latest headlines have reignited debate about what the Post Office and the government should do to address the Horizon IT scandal. The Post Office must find the right kind of crisis management strategy if it wants to weather this storm and regain its position as a trusted British brand.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/220805/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sameer Hosany does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Companies like Facebook, Volkswagen, Boeing – and now the Post Office – have seen how easy it is to destroy brand trust. But communication and transparency are key to rebuilding efforts.Sameer Hosany, Professor of Marketing, Royal Holloway University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1697992021-11-10T13:39:21Z2021-11-10T13:39:21Z3 ways Congress could hold Facebook accountable for its actions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/430913/original/file-20211108-19-o7andl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5279%2C3508&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Congress has asked many questions of Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg but has done little to regulate Facebook.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/FacebookPrivacyScandalCongress/ba1c9d84a5694224bacfe26e86581a26/photo">AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Facebook <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/10/facebook-company-is-now-meta/">may have changed its corporate name</a> to Meta Platforms, but that won’t end its troubles - nor efforts to rein in the social media company’s business practices. Lawmakers are pondering <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/30/technology/facebook-senate-hearing.html">new ways to regulate Facebook</a>, whose CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, wrote in 2019 that he <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mark-zuckerberg-the-internet-needs-new-rules-lets-start-in-these-four-areas/2019/03/29/9e6f0504-521a-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html">welcomed new “rules governing the internet</a>.” With that in mind, we asked three experts on social media, technology policy and global business to offer one specific action the government could take about Meta’s Facebook service.</em> </p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<h2>Let users control more of their data</h2>
<p><strong>Anjana Susarla, Professor of Information Systems, Michigan State University</strong></p>
<p>Social media sites like Facebook are designed for constant interaction to engage users’ attention. To rein in Facebook, lawmakers must first understand <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-whistleblower-frances-haugen-testified-that-the-companys-algorithms-are-dangerous-heres-how-they-can-manipulate-you-169420">the harm that results from algorithmic manipulation</a> on these platforms. One thing Congress could do is make sure Facebook gives users more control over what data the company collects about them and why.</p>
<p>Most people who use Facebook <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-new-digital-divide-is-between-people-who-opt-out-of-algorithms-and-people-who-dont-114719">are unaware</a> of how algorithmic recommendations affect their experience of the platform and thereby the information they engage with. For example, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/apr/12/facebook-fake-engagement-whistleblower-sophie-zhang">political campaigns have reportedly tried to manipulate engagement</a> to get more traction on Facebook.</p>
<p>A key aspect of providing such transparency is giving users greater access to and control over their data, similar to what’s proposed in California’s <a href="https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa">Consumer Privacy Act</a>. This would allow users to see what personal data Facebook collects about them and how the company uses it. Many people don’t realize that Meta has the ability to make inferences about their <a href="http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/facebook-likes/">political preferences</a> and <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DGB-43344">attitudes toward society</a>. </p>
<p>A related issue is <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/21/facebook-trails-expanding-portability-tools-ahead-of-ftc-hearing/">data portability tools and rights</a> that allow users to take the data, including photos and videos, that they shared on Facebook to other social media services. </p>
<p>Providing users with more control over their data will go a long way in ensuring independent accountability and oversight of Facebook’s operations. </p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<h2>Mandating transparency</h2>
<p><strong>Ryan Calo, Professor of Law, University of Washington</strong></p>
<p>In October 2020, Facebook sent a <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/23/21531232/facebook-nyu-ads-politics-data-election">cease-and-desist letter to New York University researchers</a>. The researchers were investigating the spread of misinformation on Facebook through political ads. The company told NYU that scraping its platform violated Facebook’s terms of service, and it threatened “additional enforcement action” should the practice continue. In August 2021, Facebook <a href="https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-5d3021ed9f193bf249c3af158b128d18">terminated the accounts of two researchers</a> and cut off NYU’s and its partners’ access to its political ad repository.</p>
<p>Companies like Meta are <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-has-a-misinformation-problem-and-is-blocking-access-to-data-about-how-much-there-is-and-who-is-affected-164838">not exactly forthcoming about the problems</a> on their platforms. The public hears about issues like misinformation and bias largely through the efforts of researchers, journalists and internal whistleblowers. </p>
<p>Congress holds the power to stay Meta’s hand when it comes to threatening legal action or blocking accountability research. Congress could, for example, add a research exemption to the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</a>, which would shield researchers from the threat of lawsuits for using data not explicitly authorized by a social media company, or protect employees from retaliation.</p>
<p>Congress could go further still: It could mandate transparency. Nothing about free speech doctrine or platform immunity prohibits the government from imposing auditing or reporting requirements for social media. The Federal Reserve embeds regulators in national banks. </p>
<p>Why shouldn’t Meta — a company with a <a href="https://companiesmarketcap.com/facebook/marketcap/">US$900 billion market capitalization</a> and ambitions to spawn a <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-metaverse-2-media-and-information-experts-explain-165731">metaverse</a> — have to open its operations to scrutiny?</p>
<p></p><hr><p></p>
<h2>An alternative approach to making Meta pay</h2>
<p><strong>Bhaskar Chakravorti, Dean of Global Business, The Fletcher School, Tufts University</strong></p>
<p>I have a pragmatic suggestion for what the government might do about Meta. </p>
<p>When New York Times columnist Farhad Manjoo <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/opinion/facebook-experts.html">recently posed this question</a> to experts, they came back with numerous solutions. Ultimately, Manjoo concluded that with the deep political divide in Congress, “doing nothing may be the likeliest outcome.” </p>
<p>I, too, agree it’s the most plausible scenario. Nevertheless, one fact is incontrovertible: Meta is under pressure right now, and the government can use this leverage to extract immediate benefits for society regardless of what happens down the road. </p>
<p>There is a larger problem than big tech’s lack of accountability: <a href="https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2019/04/08/its-time-for-a-new-approach-for-mapping-broadband-data-to-better-serve-americans/">Almost half of all Americans</a> cannot use the internet at broadband speeds. This is unacceptable in a post-pandemic world, where high-speed internet has proved essential. Broadband internet is also unaffordable for many. </p>
<p>Even the $65 billion earmarked for broadband in the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-technology-business-broadband-internet-congress-d89d6bb1b39cd9c67ae9fc91f5eb4c0d">infrastructure bill</a> just approved by Congress isn’t enough to close America’s vast digital divide. My Digital Planet research team at Tufts has estimated that the true cost of <a href="https://sites.tufts.edu/digitalplanet/us-digital-divide/">closing the infrastructure access gap is $240 billion</a> – leaving a $175 billion shortfall. </p>
<p>Lawmakers could use the stick of regulation to get the company to agree to blanket the nation with broadband. Meta already has two programs it could use to close gaps in both <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Meta/videos/191862676410948/">rural</a> and <a href="https://tech.fb.com/terragraph-alaska">urban</a> areas. </p>
<p>At the same time, Congress could levy a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/06/opinion/tax-facebook-google.html">tech tax</a> on digital ads sold by Facebook and other social networks to subsidize telecommunication service in high-cost areas.</p>
<p>By giving more people access to high-speed internet, Meta will benefit by increasing the number of people who could eventually join <a href="https://nypost.com/2021/11/05/experts-warn-facebooks-metaverse-poses-terrifying-dangers/">its metaverse</a>. While that may seem counterproductive, the ills of Facebook are outweighed by the greater ills of large swaths of the U.S. with people unable to use the internet for essential services because we couldn’t raise enough money to close the gap.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169799/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anjana Susarla receives funding from the National Institute of Health for research on user generated health information on social media platforms. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bhaskar Chakravorti has founded and directs the Institute for Business in the Global Context at Fletcher/Tufts that has received funding from Mastercard, Microsoft, the Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, Omidyar Network and the Onassis Foundation. He is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Brookings India and a Senior Advisor on Digital Inclusion at the Mastercard Center for Inclusive Growth.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>As a primary investigator at the Center for an Informed Public, Ryan Calo receives funding from the Knight Foundation, the Hewlett Foundation, Microsoft, and other sources. For a complete list of CIP funders, see <a href="https://www.cip.uw.edu/about/">https://www.cip.uw.edu/about/</a>. </span></em></p>Pressure is mounting on Congress to take action on Facebook. Our panel of experts offers their top priorities: user control of data, banking-like oversight and resources to close the digital divide.Anjana Susarla, Professor of Information Systems, Michigan State UniversityBhaskar Chakravorti, Dean of Global Business, The Fletcher School, Tufts UniversityRyan Calo, Professor of Law, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1697132021-10-15T11:35:46Z2021-10-15T11:35:46ZWhat happens to your life stories if you delete your Facebook account?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426578/original/file-20211014-25-1qec2mj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5861%2C3895&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How much of your life is archived on Facebook?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/NhU0nUR7920">Arthur Poulin/Unsplash</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If the latest deluge of <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-scandals-and-outage-test-users-frenemy-relationship-169244">Facebook controversies</a> has you ready to kick the app to the digital curb, you are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/12/leave-facebook-alternatives/">not alone</a>. There are <a href="https://www.consumerreports.org/social-media/how-to-quit-facebook-a7830117290/">plenty of good guides</a> out there on <a href="https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/how-to-permanently-delete-your-facebook-account-without-losing-your-photos/">how to do it right</a>. Even Facebook <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/224562897555674">makes it pretty easy</a> to understand the nuances of saying “see ya later” (deactivating) or “never speak to me again” (deleting).</p>
<p>But before you go, you might want to consider this: What happens to your life stories?</p>
<p>For many people, a decade or more of updates, comments, photos, messages, tags, pokes, groups and reactions reside inside that particular digital sphere. And Facebook wants you to remember that. As <a href="https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/deactivate-facebook-account-explained/">one writer put it</a>: “Facebook is obsessed with memories. It likes to make you nostalgic, and remind you of just how long you’ve used social media.”</p>
<p>As a researcher who <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=c1LwRL8AAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate">studies life stories on social media</a>, I know that’s an accurate assessment. This strategy drove Facebook to build a powerful and unique life narrative tool. Millions of people have invested billions of collective hours building what scholars call a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.23.1.10pag">networked life narrative</a>, in which people “co-construct” their social identities through their interactions with one another.</p>
<p>Perhaps you’ve never thought about how archiving the small moments of your life would eventually amass into a large narrative of yourself. Or how interactions from your family, friends, colleagues and strangers would create meaningful dimensions of that story. </p>
<h2>Deactivating versus deleting</h2>
<p>What happens if you decide to be done with all of that? If you deactivate Facebook, it is like putting that story into suspended animation. Much of what you did and said will <a href="https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/deactivate-facebook-account-explained/">either be removed or grayed out</a>. If you reactivate it someday, most of it will be restored and on you go.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426573/original/file-20211014-27-mw43zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A hand holds a white smart phone with a blue screen with the name facebook in the center and cross out marks across the text" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426573/original/file-20211014-27-mw43zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/426573/original/file-20211014-27-mw43zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426573/original/file-20211014-27-mw43zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426573/original/file-20211014-27-mw43zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426573/original/file-20211014-27-mw43zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426573/original/file-20211014-27-mw43zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/426573/original/file-20211014-27-mw43zu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Feeling the urge to quit Facebook?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flickr.com/photos/bookcatalog/40992060262/">Book Catalog/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Delete the account, on the other hand, and “Your profile, photos, posts, videos, and everything else you’ve added will be permanently deleted. You won’t be able to retrieve anything you’ve added,” <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/android-app/224562897555674">according to Facebook</a>. </p>
<p>If all those memories you have stored mean anything to you, your last chance to keep it before deleting is to <a href="https://www.facebook.com/help/212802592074644">download your information</a>. I suggest you do this once in a while anyway, because it reveals a lot about how you are tracked, how you consume media on the app and how you have acted on the site over the years. </p>
<p>It’s also a pretty nifty set of files that you can view offline either through the folder system or using a web browser offline by opening the index.html file. You can also <a href="https://www.facebook.com/your_information">look at the data</a> online through Facebook.</p>
<h2>Losing the connections</h2>
<p>But to a surprisingly large degree, your downloaded narrative gets “de-networked.” What do I mean by that?</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Your posts are listed by date and time, but have none of the reactions and comments that followed. This is also true of photos and videos you have posted.</p></li>
<li><p>The same happens to the comments you made on other people’s posts. There is no reference to what you were commenting on because technically that is not your data.</p></li>
<li><p>The polls you have voted on do not have the context of the poll itself, only your answers.</p></li>
<li><p>The invitations you received are listed only by name.</p></li>
<li><p>There is a section of all the people you have interacted with on the app, but it’s just a list of names, dates and times.</p></li>
<li><p>There are dates attached to most everything, but none of the context – think personal and social news – in which those posts were made.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>[<em>Over 115,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<p>There are exceptions. For one, your messages are left in context, so you see the conversations you had. Another exception is that events are ordered by how you responded about attending. And I have one caveat: I am gathering this information from my own data, so there might be other exceptions I cannot see.</p>
<h2>Take a look around before walking out the door</h2>
<p>Still, what you ultimately download starts to feel like the scaffolding of a life, with the depth of those memories only activated by your own mind. That might be enough for you. </p>
<p>If the richness of your networked narrative means something, on the other hand, slow down. Take some time to dive into your account one last time – saving the responses you cherish, capturing the context where you can – before you say goodbye to Facebook for good.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169713/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Humphrey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many people are feeling the urge to quit Facebook. It’s not hard to do, technically speaking. It’s a good idea, however, to pause first and look back on your digital memories.Michael Humphrey, Assistant Professor of Journalism and Media Communication, Colorado State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1472612020-10-01T20:05:45Z2020-10-01T20:05:45ZFacebook is merging Messenger and Instagram chat features. It’s for Zuckerberg’s benefit, not yours<p>Facebook Messenger and Instagram’s direct messaging services will be integrated into one system, Facebook has <a href="https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/say-hi-to-messenger-introducing-new-messaging-features-for-instagram">announced</a>. </p>
<p>The merge will allow shared messaging across both platforms, as well as video calls and the use of a range of tools drawn from both platforms. It’s currently being rolled out across countries on an opt-in basis, but hasn’t yet reached Australia.</p>
<p>Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634/">announced</a> plans in March last year to integrate Messenger, Instagram Direct and WhatsApp into a unified messaging experience. </p>
<p>At the crux of this was the goal to administer end-to-end encryption across the whole messaging “ecosystem”. </p>
<p>Ostensibly, this was part of Facebook’s renewed focus on privacy, in the wake of several highly publicised scandals. Most notable was its poor data protection that allowed political consulting firm <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election">Cambridge Analytica</a> to steal data from 87 million Facebook accounts and use it to target users with political ads ahead of the 2016 US presidential election.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/new-messaging-features-for-instagram/">statement</a> released yesterday on the new merge, Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri and Messenger vice president Stan Chudnovsky wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… one out of three people sometimes find it difficult to remember where to find a certain conversation thread. With this update, it will be even easier to stay connected without thinking about which app to use to reach your friends and family.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While that may seem harmless, it’s likely Facebook is actually attempting to make its apps inseparable, ahead of a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-15/ftc-said-to-prepare-possible-antitrust-lawsuit-against-facebook">potential anti-trust lawsuit</a> in the US that may try to see the company sell Instagram and WhatsApp. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/CFxRG23pZXV","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<h2>Together, with Facebook, 24/7</h2>
<p>The Messenger/Instagram Direct merge will <a href="https://mashable.com/article/facebook-messenger-instagram/">extend to</a> features rolled out during the pandemic, such as the “<a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/introducing-watch-together-on-messenger/">Watch Together</a>” tool for Messenger. As the name suggests, this lets users watch videos together in real time. Now, both Messenger and Instagram users will be able to use it, regardless of which app they’re on.</p>
<p>With the integration, new privacy challenges emerge. Facebook has <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/privacy-matters-cross-app-communication/">already acknowledged</a> this. And these challenges will present despite Facebook’s overarching privacy policy applying to every app in its app “family”. </p>
<p>For example, in the new merged messaging ecosystem, a user you previously blocked on Messenger won’t automatically be blocked on Instagram. Thus, the blocked person will be able to <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/privacy-matters-cross-app-communication/">once again contact you</a>. This could open doors to a plethora of unexpected online abuse.</p>
<h2>Why this is good for Mark Zuckerberg</h2>
<p>This first step – and Facebook’s <a href="https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-privacy-focused-vision-for-social-networking/10156700570096634/">full roadmap</a> for the encrypted integration of WhatsApp, Instagram Direct and Messenger – has three clear outcomes.</p>
<p>Firstly, end-to-end encryption means Facebook will have <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1207081/download">complete deniability</a> for anything that travels across its messaging tools. </p>
<p>It won’t be able to “see” the messages. While this might be good from a user privacy perspective, it also means anything from bullying, to <a href="https://milwaukeenns.org/2014/05/21/special-report-diploma-mill-scams-continue-to-plague-milwaukees-adult-students/">scams</a>, to illegal drug sales, to <a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ednc/pr/jacksonville-man-sentenced-child-pornography-case">paedophilia</a> can’t be policed if it happens via these tools. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-push-for-end-to-end-encryption-is-good-news-for-user-privacy-as-well-as-terrorists-and-paedophiles-128782">Facebook's push for end-to-end encryption is good news for user privacy, as well as terrorists and paedophiles</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This would stop Facebook being blamed for hurtful or illegal uses of its services. As far as moderating the platform goes, Facebook would effectively become “invisible” (not to mention moderation is <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305120948186">expensive and complicated</a>). </p>
<p>This is all great news for Mark Zuckerberg, especially as Facebook stares down the barrel of <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/29/21335706/antitrust-hearing-highlights-facebook-google-amazon-apple-congress-testimony">potential anti-trust litigation</a>.</p>
<p>Secondly, once the apps are merged, functionally they will no longer be separate platforms. They will still <em>exist</em> as separate apps with some separate features, but the vast amount of personal data underpinning them will live in one giant, shared database. </p>
<p>Deeper data integration will let Facebook know users more intimately. Moreover, it will be able to leverage this new insight to target users with more advertising and expand further.</p>
<p>Finally, and perhaps most concerning, is that by integrating its apps Facebook could legitimately respond to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/ftc-preparing-possible-antitrust-suit-against-facebook-11600211840">anti-trust lawsuits</a> by saying it can’t separate Instagram or WhatsApp from the main Facebook platform – because they’re the same thing now. </p>
<p>And if they can’t be separated, there’s no way Facebook could sell Instagram or WhatsApp, even if it wanted to. </p>
<h2>100 billion messages a day</h2>
<p>The messaging traffic across Facebook’s platforms <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/09/new-messaging-features-for-instagram/">is vast</a>, with more than 100 billion messages sent daily. And this has <a href="https://www.warc.com/newsandopinion/news/pandemic-lifts-social-media-use-but-for-how-long/43552">only</a> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/07/technology/coronavirus-internet-use.html">increased</a> during the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<p>With the sheer size of its user database, Facebook continues to either purchase, or squash, its competition. Concerns about the company being a monopoly aren’t without merit. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/4/17816572/tim-wu-facebook-regulation-interview-curse-of-bigness-antitrust">Researchers</a> and <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/9/18538106/facebook-co-founder-chris-hughes-breakup-regulation-ftc-us-government">founding Facebook employees</a> have called to have the company split up – and for Instagram and Whatsapp to become separate again.</p>
<p>Just a few months ago, Facebook released its Instagram-housed tool <a href="https://about.instagram.com/blog/announcements/introducing-instagram-reels-announcement">Reels</a> which bears a striking resemblance to TikTok, another social app sweeping the globe. </p>
<p>It seems this is just another example of Facebook trying to use the sheer size of its network to stifle growing competition, aided (perhaps unwittingly) by Donald Trump’s anti-China sentiment.</p>
<p>If competition is important to encouraging innovation and diversity, then the newest development from Facebook discourages both these things. It further entrenches Facebook and its services into the lives of consumers, making it harder to pull away. And this certainly isn’t far from monopolistic behaviour.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-tiktok-deal-explained-who-is-oracle-why-walmart-and-what-does-it-mean-for-our-data-146566">Trump's TikTok deal explained: who is Oracle? Why Walmart? And what does it mean for our data?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/147261/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tama Leaver receives funding from Australian Research Council (ARC); he is currently a Chief Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.</span></em></p>Having an end-to-end encrypted messaging ‘ecosystem’ is a great way for Facebook to evade the full wrath of the law. It has come at a convenient time, too.Tama Leaver, Associate Professor in Internet Studies, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1189872019-06-18T20:53:28Z2019-06-18T20:53:28ZWith cryptocurrency launch, Facebook sets its path toward becoming an independent nation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280095/original/file-20190618-118530-1j9hjdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=94%2C12%2C756%2C465&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The world's newest country?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-24607922-facebook-company-flag-waving-slow-motion-against">railway fx/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Facebook has announced a plan to launch <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/technology/facebook-cryptocurrency-libra.html">a new cryptocurrency named the Libra</a>, adding another layer to its efforts to dominate global communications and business. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/technology/facebook-cryptocurrency-libra.html">Backed by huge finance and technology companies</a> including Visa, Spotify, eBay, PayPal and Uber – plus a ready-made <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/">user base of 2 billion people</a> around the world – Facebook is positioned to pressure countries and central banks to cooperate with its <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/technology/facebook-cryptocurrency-libra.html">reinvention of the global financial system</a>.</p>
<p>In my view as a <a href="https://newhouse.syr.edu/faculty-staff/jennifer-grygiel">social media researcher and educator</a>, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is clearly seeking to give his company even more <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/41375924">political power on a global scale</a>, despite the potential dangers to society at large. In a sense, he is declaring that he wants Facebook to become a virtual nation, populated by users, powered by a self-contained economy, and headed by a CEO – Zuckerberg himself – who is <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/5/30/18644755/facebook-stock-shareholder-meeting-mark-zuckerberg-vote">not even accountable to his shareholders</a>.</p>
<p>Facebook <a href="https://theconversation.com/technology-giants-didnt-deserve-public-trust-in-the-first-place-106989">hasn’t behaved responsibly</a> in the past, and is still wrestling with significant public concerns – and investigations – about its <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/13/facebook-investigations-by-eu-ireland-regulator-nearing-conclusions.html">privacy practices</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-facebooks-effort-to-fight-fake-news-human-fact-checkers-play-a-supporting-role-1539856800">information accuracy</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/apr/17/eu-tells-facebooks-nick-clegg-to-rethink-ad-funding-rules">targeted advertising</a>. Therefore, it’s important to see through the hype. People must <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/586053?seq=1">consider who is reshaping the world</a>, and whether they are doing it in the best interests of humankind – or whether they are just seeking to benefit the new class of elite technology executives. </p>
<p>Humanity needs ethical leadership, and time to think through the potential repercussions of rapid technological change. That’s why, in my view, Facebook’s cryptocurrency <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/technology/facebook-cryptocurrency-libra.html">should be blocked</a> by financial regulators until its design has been proved to be safe for all of global society.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280098/original/file-20190618-118526-1jvkige.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280098/original/file-20190618-118526-1jvkige.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/280098/original/file-20190618-118526-1jvkige.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280098/original/file-20190618-118526-1jvkige.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280098/original/file-20190618-118526-1jvkige.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280098/original/file-20190618-118526-1jvkige.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280098/original/file-20190618-118526-1jvkige.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/280098/original/file-20190618-118526-1jvkige.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=515&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">You might not want to trust this man.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Zuckerberg_F8_2018_Keynote_(41118893354).jpg">Anthony Quintano/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Understanding Libra</h2>
<p>Technology companies are interested in a <a href="https://qz.com/1642172/jack-dorsey-on-bitcoin-facebooks-crypto-and-the-end-of-cash/">global currency that is native to the internet</a>. That could allow companies like Facebook and Twitter to bring in more users to their platforms, and <a href="https://www.coindesk.com/nouriel-roubini-says-facebooks-globalcoin-has-nothing-to-do-with-crypto">collect money</a> from <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/18/facebook-libra/">businesses who want to join</a> the new system. They also want to <a href="https://www.barrons.com/articles/what-facebooks-cryptocurrency-push-means-51560539185">siphon off business from the existing financial services industry</a>. That sector is worth <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/what-percentage-global-economy-comprised-financial-services-sector.asp">trillions of dollars</a>, is enormously profitable, and yet has <a href="http://fortune.com/2018/06/07/blockchain-firm-r3-is-running-out-of-money-sources-say/">struggled to implement its own digital currency</a>.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1140750182373568514"}"></div></p>
<p>The technical details of Facebook’s plans are still emerging, but it seems that the company is not seeking to compete with <a href="https://www.capmktsreg.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/CCMR_statement_Blockchain_Securities_Settlement-Final.pdf">Bitcoin</a> or other <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/technology/cryptocurrency-facebook-telegram.html">cryptocurrencies</a>. Rather, Facebook is looking to replace the existing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/technology/facebook-cryptocurrency-libra.html">global financial system</a> with an all-new setup, with Libra at its center.</p>
<p>The company may be counting on increased public interest in <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/geraldfenech/2019/01/17/what-is-plaguing-the-cryptocurrency-market/#7e7a0abd4edf">cryptocurrencies and financial technologies</a>, and its market strength, to overcome objections. However, I don’t believe Facebook should be allowed to <a href="https://www.barrons.com/articles/what-facebooks-cryptocurrency-push-means-51560539185">wreck the global financial system</a> like it has, as many see it, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-facebook-went-from-friend-to-frenemy-110130">wrecked global communications</a>.</p>
<h2>Speeding global exchange</h2>
<p>There is definitely a need for <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/18/facebook-libra/">smoother, faster and cheaper</a> ways to <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2019/04/08/record-high-remittances-sent-globally-in-2018">send money around the world</a>, and to provide access to financial services to the many <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/18/facebook-libra-launch-cryptocurrency">people who do not have formal bank accounts</a>. There is real potential to Libra, but there are likely to be ways to improve even more, developing a payment system that better serves the world as a whole.</p>
<p>At least at the moment, the Libra is being designed as a form of <a href="https://www.coindesk.com/icelandic-regulators-approve-startups-plan-for-fiat-payments-on-ethereum">electronic money</a> <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/d4c1e00c-8dd6-11e9-a24d-b42f641eca37">linked to many national currencies</a>. That has <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/france-calls-for-central-bank-review-of-facebook-cryptocurrency">raised fears</a> that Libra might someday be recognized as a sovereign currency, with Facebook acting as a “<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/libra-pushback-against-facebook-cryptocurrency-begins-2019-6">shadow bank</a>” that could compete with the central banks of countries around the world.</p>
<p>It doesn’t help that Facebook is already positioning itself to evade <a href="https://www.coindesk.com/facebooks-new-crypto-faces-scrutiny-from-european-authorities">regulatory scrutiny</a> by <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18682838/facebook-digital-wallet-calibra-libra-cryptocurrency-kevin-weil-david-marcus-interview">creating a corporate subsidiary</a> that will join an <a href="https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/calibra_swiss-role-in-facebook-cryptocurrency-project-revealed/45038626">ostensibly independent governing body</a> for the Libra.</p>
<p>To protect consumers, regulators should look carefully at whether the new system supporting the Libra is sound. It may be that an entirely new set of financial rules and regulations is needed to shield the existing financial system from harm if the Libra becomes more popular than national currencies. At the very least, governments need to proceed slowly and carefully when new products may introduce systemic risks into our environment. Even the <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2019/06/14/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-poppy-harlow-zw-orig.cnn">CEO of Google</a> has acknowledged that. In my opinion, Libra’s planned launch in 2020 does not allow enough time to fully vet this technology and its risks.</p>
<h2>Protecting the global financial system</h2>
<p>Financial regulations have developed over time to encourage <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/02/07/fincen-know-your-customer-requirements/">trust between unknown parties</a>, and to protect regular customers from fraudsters and corporate greed. There are also rules that help governments prevent and detect <a href="https://www.finra.org/industry/anti-money-laundering">transactions that support crime and terrorism</a>.</p>
<p>This is not to say that all payments and purchases should be tied to a <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/02/07/fincen-know-your-customer-requirements/">known entity online or in real life</a>. <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w20126">Cash and anonymity is also a civil right</a> and is key to privacy and personal freedoms. </p>
<p>As new digital financial services, methods of electronic payment and currencies develop and become popular, they should not be allowed to undermine longstanding <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/24357502">financial safety systems</a>, even in the name of smoother, cheaper transactions. </p>
<p>My concern is not just about large-volume transactions. Facebook has shown how even small amounts of money can buy <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/17/can-mark-zuckerberg-fix-facebook-before-it-breaks-democracy">microtargeted ads</a> with the power to influence public opinion and election outcomes in the U.S. and around the world.</p>
<h2>Product design and risk assessment</h2>
<p>Facebook has a long history of <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/13/facebook-investigations-by-eu-ireland-regulator-nearing-conclusions.html">questionable business models and privacy practices</a>. The public, and their representatives in government – including elected officials, financial regulators and <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/14/18678785/facebook-libra-cryptocurrency-visa-mastercard-uber-paypal-stripe-association-consortium">central bank authorities</a> – should carefully scrutinize all aspects of Facebook’s cryptocurrency plans. </p>
<p>This concern is especially urgent because Facebook also has a long history of launching products and services, like political ads and <a href="https://theconversation.com/livestreamed-massacre-means-its-time-to-shut-down-facebook-live-113830">live-streaming video</a>, without fully considering their potential to damage democracy and the global society at large.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EgI_KAkSyCw?wmode=transparent&start=56" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Mark Zuckerberg didn’t think enough about how people could use Facebook for ill.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The company has demonstrated its inability to serve society beneficially – and it <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.12.003">may not even be interested in trying</a>. All the signals suggest that customers and regulators alike should carefully examine whether Facebook’s Libra is <a href="http://www.people.hbs.edu/rmerton/Financial%20System%20and%20Economic%20Peformance.pdf">truly innovative</a> or just a way to avoid restrictions on a potentially hazardous financial product.</p>
<h2>Defending democracy</h2>
<p>Facebook’s entrance into the financial industry is a threat to democracies and their citizens around the world, on the same scale as disinformation and information warfare, which also depend on social media for their effectiveness.</p>
<p>It may be hard for world leaders to understand that this is an emergency, as they cannot see the virtual powers aligning against them. But they must huddle quickly to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/24357502?seq=1">ensure they have</a> – and keep – the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.12.003">power to protect their people</a> from technology companies’ greed.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1140941085885308929"}"></div></p>
<p>It will be key to understand if Facebook’s future cryptocurrency will ultimately function more like anonymous cash, or more like a traceable credit card transaction. Facebook has the blockchain and encryption technology to create an anonymous digital cash-like system, or a private digital currency, <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/03/regarding-facebooks-cryptocurrency/">which has not been created yet</a>. Anonymity would heighten the risks of abuse such as money laundering, so it’s worth watching out for a cash-like Facebook cryptocurrency that mirrors the central banks’ cash system.</p>
<p>In addition, I cannot help but reflect on the name that Facebook chose for this, the Libra, which is a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/technology/facebook-cryptocurrency-libra.html">reference to the Roman measurement for a pound</a>, once used to mint coins. In many ways the company that Mark Zuckerberg is building is beginning to look more like a Roman Empire, now with its own central bank and currency, than a corporation. The only problem is that this new nation-like platform is a controlled company and is run more like a <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/10/mark-zuckerbergs-control-of-facebook-is-like-a-dictatorship-calstrs.html">dictatorship</a> than a sovereign country with democratically elected leaders. Even now, the company may have <a href="https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/4/9/17214752/zuckerberg-facebook-power-regulation-data-privacy-control-political-theory-data-breach-king">as much power</a> as some countries – and <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/15/these-25-companies-are-more-powerful-than-many-countries-multinational-corporate-wealth-power/">more than others</a>.</p>
<p>In the wake of the not too distant <a href="https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2013/09/07/crash-course">global financial crisis</a>, and the “fake news” and disinformation culture that is developing, people must slow down and fully evaluate disruptive technology of this magnitude. Society cannot withstand a launch of a cryptocurrency in Facebook’s infamous “<a href="https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-era-of-move-fast-and-break-things-is-over">move fast and break things</a>” style.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118987/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Grygiel owns a small number of shares in the following social media companies: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Alibaba, LinkedIn, YY and Snap. Grygiel also owns nominal amounts of the following cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin, Litecoin and Ethereum.</span></em></p>With the launch of the Libra cryptocurrency, Mark Zuckerberg reveals his dreams of building a new virtual country, perhaps inspired by the Roman Empire.Jennifer Grygiel, Assistant Professor of Communications (Social Media) & Magazine, News and Digital Journalism, Syracuse UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1084542019-01-11T11:47:02Z2019-01-11T11:47:02Z3 ways to be smart on social media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253270/original/file-20190110-43532-7e4oq7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A smarter use of social media can improve your sense of well-being.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/social-media-networking-technology-innovation-concept-381680653?src=Fn-hLvJP8kg4pqBrfDFvKw-1-61">Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This past year, many people <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/12/19/these-people-deleted-their-facebook-accounts-and-have-no-regrets/2365191002/">deleted</a> their social media accounts following revelations about <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/417049-hate-speech-fake-news-privacy-violations-time-to-rein-in-social-media">privacy violations on social media platforms</a> and other concerns related to hate speech. </p>
<p>As people adopt their resolutions for the year, it is likely that many more will reconsider their social media use. </p>
<p>However, as a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=krMEDisAAAAJ&hl=en">scholar</a> of social media and religion, I’d argue that rather than just stop using social media, people could use it to improve their overall well-being. Here are three ways to do so.</p>
<h2>1. Be active</h2>
<p>Studies have shown that there is a big difference between passive social media use and active use. Scrolling through a newsfeed and merely looking at what others have posted is considered passive social media use. </p>
<p>Conversely, commenting on posts, sharing articles and creating posts constitute active social media use. Research has found that actively using social networking sites can contribute to <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/sipr.12033">feelings of social connectedness</a>. This can contribute to a sense of overall well-being.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a study found that passive Facebook use <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000057">increases feelings of envy</a>. Researchers asked participants to sit in a laboratory and passively use Facebook by only browsing and not commenting, sharing or liking content. Participants passively using Facebook were found to have an increase in their feelings of envy. </p>
<h2>2. Focus on meaningful engagement</h2>
<p>Social media sites allow users to engage in various types of communication. There are impersonal forms of communication such as the single click “Like” button and more personal forms of communication such as direct messaging and comments. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253271/original/file-20190110-43507-15mnrp0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253271/original/file-20190110-43507-15mnrp0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253271/original/file-20190110-43507-15mnrp0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253271/original/file-20190110-43507-15mnrp0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253271/original/file-20190110-43507-15mnrp0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253271/original/file-20190110-43507-15mnrp0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253271/original/file-20190110-43507-15mnrp0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Direct messaging and comments can help with a deeper level of engagement.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/alushta-russia-october-20-2016-woman-572264506?src=D9qEng1ZkoMRbn3Vw7tSnA-1-9">Denys Prykhodov/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Research has found that direct communication on Facebook can have a positive <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12162">psychological impact on individuals</a>. A direct message can often lead to feelings of social support and encouragement. It has been found to be <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.7903/ijecs.1391">particularly helpful</a> when people already share a connection. Direct messaging and personalized comments can provide a deeper level of engagement.</p>
<p>One of these studies showed that commenting on a post, instead of pressing the like button, could improve the mood of the person who made the original post. In one such example, a respondent in the study described how personalized comments, even trivial ones about funny cat videos, can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12162">result in feelings of support</a>. </p>
<p>Similarly, research has shown that social networking sites can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441936">provide social support</a> to those who have recently lost a job. </p>
<h2>3. Use social media for professional purposes</h2>
<p>According to researchers in Germany, <a href="https://www.iwm-tuebingen.de/www/personen/ma.html?uid=sutz">Sonja Utz</a> and <a href="https://www.uni-muenster.de/Kowi/en/personen/johannes-breuer.html">Johannes Breuer</a>, using social networking sites for professional purposes can result in “informational benefits” such as knowing what is happening in one’s field and developing professional connections.</p>
<p>For example, these scholars found that people who use social networking sites for professional purposes report having greater access to information about timely innovations in their field than nonusers. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2015.1014321">similar study</a> of academics in the United Kingdom found that 70 percent of participants had gained valuable professional information through Twitter. </p>
<p>Researchers, however, have found that these professional benefits <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5817/CP2016-4-3">require active use</a> of social networking sites. “Frequent skimming of posts,” as Utz and Breuer explain, can lead to “short time benefits.” What is more important, however, are “active contributions to work-related discussions.” </p>
<p>Indeed, there are those who <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kww189">recommend curtailing use of social media</a> and focusing instead on real-world relationships. But, as with everything else, moderation is vital.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108454/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>A. Trevor Sutton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Don’t swear off social media. Use it to your advantage.A. Trevor Sutton, Ph.D. Student in Doctrinal Theology, Concordia SeminaryLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1080072018-12-09T17:21:40Z2018-12-09T17:21:40Z‘Start-up nation’: a symptom, but of what?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248198/original/file-20181130-194941-1adhfws.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C11%2C1500%2C866&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Under pressure, young entrepreneurs would tend to forget to take into account the effects of their ambitions on their surroundings. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Just dance/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Today, becoming a “start-up nation” is a public policy objective in virtually every country in the world, be it Morocco, Bangladesh, Mexico or Peru. They are all rushing to follow the nations that have led the way – the United States, China, South Korea, Israel, Canada. </p>
<p>France got off to a laborious start in the early 2000s, but has recently reactivated this goal. On October 10, 2018, President Emmanuel Macron addressed an audience of digital entrepreneurs at Station F, which calls itself the <a href="https://stationf.co/fr/">“biggest start-up campus in the world”</a>, and announced an ambitious roadmap to assist and promote entrepreneurs in France.</p>
<p>Everywhere, institutional pressure to transform young people into entrepreneurs is becoming an obsession. It’s a symptom, but of what? Can it not be seen as a sign of panic among politicians contemplating the shortage of prospects to offer young people?</p>
<h2>A cascade of service providers</h2>
<p>Let’s try to interpret this strange new command: “Become entrepreneurs!” It seems to suggest that established institutions only open up two avenues for the younger generation: opt for indigence with some degree of welfare assistance (e.g. a basic living stipend) or take a gamble. If so, then encouragement to create start-ups may be seen as the public face of a very discreet strategy on the part of large state and capitalistic organisations intent on sweeping this social issue under the carpet.</p>
<p>To an increasing extent, these same organisations are subcontracting, outsourcing, automating, robotising and digitising to reduce the cost of labour as a percentage of total operating expenditure. They look for “talent”, i.e. a small minority of high-value added employees, while systematically avoiding the employment of workers deemed interchangeable, leaving them to the hard law of the market and progressively transforming them into service providers; into the providers of other providers; into the providers of providers of providers; and so forth.</p>
<h2>A new wave of utopias</h2>
<p>What’s going to happen to university graduates? Whether they major in physical education, the humanities, communication and journalism, marketing or human resources, they all dream of finding jobs that will bring them self-fulfilment and even enjoyment. In France, they also expect five weeks of annual paid vacation and time off in lieu of overtime pay under the “RTT” scheme.</p>
<p>In the 1970s, young university-goers saw themselves as radical activists, reading Trotsky, Lenin or Mao in preparation for the revolution to come. To a small degree, that dream has persisted in variant forms such as eco-activism, alter-globalisation or feminism. However, it is now part of a new wave of utopias that amalgamates digitisation, virtual reality, risk-taking, entrepreneurship, start-ups, easy money, the get-rich-quick ethic and the cult of performance.</p>
<p>The problem is that, in today’s society, young people arrive on a job market that is not prepared to accommodate them. Leaving them to themselves, it calls them “entrepreneurs”. This magic word, with its connotations of freedom and hope, actually shifts responsibility for any eventual disappointments or failures onto them and them alone. Failure will then be <a href="https://www.odilejacob.fr/catalogue/psychologie/psychologie-generale/fatigue-detre-soi_9782738108593.php">a token of their inadequacy</a> and the success of the few will be taken as proof that the many could have done the same, as Alain Ehernberg rightly pointed out in his book <a href="https://www.mqup.ca/weariness-of-the-self--the-products-9780773536258.php"><em>Weariness of the Self: Diagnosing the History of Depression in the Contemporary Age</em></a>.</p>
<h2>Even brilliant successes are problematic</h2>
<p>In a <a href="https://theconversation.com/la-bataille-dazincourt-1415-la-mode-des-start-up-1998-2017-et-lhistoire-des-passions-francaises-85491">previous article</a>, I raised the issue of the rate at which start-up founders meet with failure. I also stressed how little we know about the collateral damage to their lives and those of their families as well as, more generally, the social and financial cost of aggregate business closures.</p>
<p>It should also be noted that even the most brilliant successes are problematic. Inevitably, outsized ambitions to achieve impressive growth built from nothing, or virtually nothing, will have moral consequences on “les entrepreneurs et les entrepris”, a phrase coined by <a href="https://classiques-garnier.com/entrepreneurs-entreprise-histoire-d-une-idee.html">philosopher Héléne Verin</a>, <em>entrepris</em> being a neologism for those caught up in the toils of entrepreneurship.</p>
<p>I encourage you to read an article on this subject by <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pour-en-finir-avec-le-machiav%C3%A9lisme-start-up-diana-filippova/">Diana Filippova</a>, formerly the start-up ecosystem lead at Microsoft France, in which she expresses her indignation at the Machiavellian behaviour of some of the start-up founders that have crossed her path.</p>
<p>In particular, she notes that young entrepreneurs, obsessed with growth targets and under pressure to deliver results, quickly become sharks. Some remain oblivious to the effects of their ambitions on those involved in or affected by their venture. Many careers starting out with the best of intentions end up marked by serial bankruptcies, business registrations and cynicism.</p>
<h2>Irresponsible opportunism</h2>
<p>Start-ups like <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2018/03/22/ce-qu-il-faut-savoir-sur-cambridge-analytica-la-societe-au-c-ur-du-scandale-facebook_5274804_4408996.html">Cambridge Analytica</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/theranos-les-inavouables-secrets-dune-start-up-frauduleuse-103860">Theranos</a> have displayed an extreme form of irresponsible opportunism. Was Mark Zuckerberg really so busy focusing on his own start-up’s mega-success that he didn’t realize what he was doing prior to testifying before committees at the US Senate or the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.fr/en-direct-audition-mark-zuckerberg-au-parlement-europeen/">European Parliament committee hearing</a>? Have Facebook users finally gotten the picture? Have they finally understood that Facebook, the platform enabling them to “stay connected with family and friends”, is also dirty, selling their personal data on the sly?</p>
<p>One lesson to be learned from the history of capitalism is that the accumulation of massive wealth in a very short lapse of time almost always involves <a href="https://www.editionsladecouverte.fr/catalogue/index-Portrait_de_l_homme_d_affaires_en_predateur-9782707150745.html">predatory activities</a>. To cite Aristotle’s terminology, this is <em>chrematistikos</em> (the art of acquiring wealth), not <em>oikonomia</em> (the art of running a household).</p>
<p>The investment funds that back start-ups exert pressure on them to accumulate as much wealth as possible as quickly as possible. And scenarios like this, in which outsized ambitions run rampant, are precisely those in which predation becomes the most probable factor of success.</p>
<h2>Under pressure to succeed</h2>
<p>Some successful start-ups, GAFAs and unicorns achieve growth by crushing everything that stands in their way. But what about the entrepreneurs whose business, mismatched with the market, fails to get off the ground? This fragilised population is the one likely to suffer the most from the pernicious effects of propaganda in favour of entrepreneurship.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242155/original/file-20181024-71011-1l8j9gy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/242155/original/file-20181024-71011-1l8j9gy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=841&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242155/original/file-20181024-71011-1l8j9gy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=841&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242155/original/file-20181024-71011-1l8j9gy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=841&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242155/original/file-20181024-71011-1l8j9gy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1057&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242155/original/file-20181024-71011-1l8j9gy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1057&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/242155/original/file-20181024-71011-1l8j9gy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1057&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Robert K. Merton.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wikipedia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Robert K. Merton pointed out in his book <em>Social Theory and Social Structure</em> (1968), “<em>In societies such as our own, then, the great cultural emphasis on pecuniary success for all and a social structure which unduly limits practical recourse to approved means for many set up a tension toward innovative practices which depart from institutional norms</em>”. He also noted that: “<em>Several researches have shown that specialised areas of vice and crime constitute a "normal” response to a situation where the cultural emphasis upon pecuniary success has been absorbed, but where there is little access to conventional and legitimate means for becoming successful.</em>“</p>
<p>If the strongest survive, it’s often because they commit fouls on other players in the game, feel that "anything goes” in order to win and think that, on this playing field, the end justifies the means.</p>
<p>So, what are we looking at? Innovation or criminal deviance? Impressive growth or future disasters? New technologies that liberate or enslave? Social entrepreneurship or a well-planned, right-minded scam? Given its current modus operandi, entrepreneurship promises a fortune for the few, while the many slip and fall by the wayside. The moral climate of this “accident-prone” business environment can only be characterised as sinister.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was translated from the <a href="https://www.universite-paris-saclay.fr/en/news/the-start-up-nation-a-symptom-but-of-what">French original</a> by Université Paris Saclay.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108007/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michel Villette ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>The enthusiasm for business creation is not without negative consequences, especially for the many who fail. However, the “all entrepreneurs” discourse remains predominant.Michel Villette, Professeur de Sociologie, Chercheur au Centre Maurice Halbwachs ENS/EHESS/CNRS , professeur de sociologie, AgroParisTech – Université Paris-SaclayLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1064762018-12-05T11:40:57Z2018-12-05T11:40:57ZWhatsApp skewed Brazilian election, showing social media’s danger to democracy<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/18/brazil-jair-bolsonaro-whatsapp-fake-news-campaign">Misinformation via social media</a> played a troubling role in <a href="https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2018/12/fraude-com-cpf-viabilizou-disparo-de-mensagens-de-whatsapp-na-eleicao.shtml">boosting far-right Congressman Jair Bolsonaro</a> to into the Brazilian presidency. </p>
<p>Bolsonaro did not <a href="https://theconversation.com/bolsonaro-wins-brazil-election-promises-to-purge-leftists-from-country-105481">win 55 percent of votes</a> thanks to misinformation alone. A powerful desire for political change in Brazil after a yearslong corruption scandal and a court decision compelling the jailed front-runner <a href="https://theconversation.com/brazil-in-political-crisis-over-jailed-president-4-essential-reads-91143">Luis Inacio Lula da Silva</a> to withdraw from the race both opened the door wide for his win. </p>
<p>But Bolsonaro’s candidacy benefited from a powerful and coordinated disinformation campaign intended to discredit his rivals, according to <a href="https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2018/10/empresarios-bancam-campanha-contra-o-pt-pelo-whatsapp.shtml">the Brazilian newspaper Folha</a>. </p>
<p>Days before the Oct. 28 runoff between Bolsonaro and his leftist competitor, leftist Fernando Haddad, an investigation by Folha revealed that a conservative Brazilian business lobby had bankrolled the multimillion-dollar smear campaign – activities that may have constituted an illegal campaign contribution. </p>
<h2>Election scandal fallout</h2>
<p>Using WhatsApp, a Facebook-owned messaging service, Bolsonaro supporters delivered an onslaught of daily misinformation straight to millions of Brazilians’ phones. </p>
<p>They included doctored photos portraying senior Workers Party members celebrating with Communist <a href="https://piaui.folha.uol.com.br/lupa/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Relat%C3%B3rio-WhatsApp-1-turno-Lupa-2F-USP-2F-UFMG.pdf">Fidel Castro</a> after the Cuban Revolution, audio clips manipulated to misrepresent Haddad’s policies and fake “fact-checks” discrediting authentic news stories.</p>
<p>The misinformation strategy was effective because WhatsApp is an essential communication tool in Brazil, used by <a href="http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2018/brazil-2018/">120 million of its 210 million citizens</a>. Since WhatsApp text messages are forwarded and reforwarded by friends and family, the information seems more credible. </p>
<p>The fallout from Folha’s front-page report compelled WhatsApp to issue an apologetic <a href="https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/opiniao/2018/10/como-o-whatsapp-combate-a-desinformacao-no-brasil.shtml">op-ed</a>.</p>
<p>“Every day, millions of Brazilians trust WhatsApp with their most private conversations,” wrote WhatsApp’s vice president, Chris Daniels, in Folha. “Because both good and bad information can go viral on WhatsApp, we have a responsibility to amplify the good and mitigate the harm.” </p>
<p>The company announced that it would <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/news/h/how-whatsapp-is-fighting-misinformation-in-brazil/">purge</a> thousands of spam accounts in Brazil, clearly label messages to show that they had been forwarded, tighten rules on group messaging and partner with Brazilian fact-checking organizations to identify false news.</p>
<p>Brazil’s highest electoral court also created an <a href="http://www.tse.jus.br/imprensa/noticias-tse/2018/Outubro/conselho-consultivo-sobre-internet-e-eleicoes-discute-impacto-das-fake-news">advisory board on internet and elections</a> to investigate disinformation in Brazil’s 2018 election and propose regulations to limit its impact in future political processes.</p>
<h2>It’s a WhatsApp-defined world</h2>
<p>Brazil is only the latest country to learn that <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-is-killing-democracy-with-its-personality-profiling-data-93611">social media can undermine the democratic process</a>. </p>
<p>Numerous studies have confirmed that a toxic blend of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/25/facebook-fined-uk-privacy-access-user-data-cambridge-analytica">data mismanagement</a>, targeted advertisement and online misinformation also influenced the outcomes of the United Kingdom’s Brexit vote and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-a-post-truth-election-clicks-trump-facts-67274">2016 U.S. presidential race</a>.</p>
<p>Brazil’s WhatsApp election scandal should be a wake-up call particularly for other developing world democracies, as revealed in <a href="https://public.tableau.com/profile/zeroratingcts#!/vizhome/zeroratinginfo/Painel1">research I recently presented</a> at the United Nations’ Internet Governance Forum. </p>
<p>That’s because the conditions that allowed fake news to thrive in Brazil exist in many Latin American, African and Asian countries.</p>
<p>Internet access is very expensive in Brazil. A broadband connection can cost up to 15 percent of <a href="http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/economia/noticia/2017-02/brazils-national-average-household-income-capita-40016-2016">a household’s income</a> and mobile plans with unlimited data, common in rich countries, are rare.</p>
<p>Instead, mobile carriers entice users by offering “zero rating” plans with <a href="https://internet-governance.fgv.br/sites/internet-governance.fgv.br/files/publicacoes/belli_arcep_zero_rating_minitel_en.pdf">free access</a> to specific applications, typically Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter. Nearly three-quarters of Brazilian internet users had these prepaid mobile-internet plans in 2016, according to the technology research center <a href="http://cetic.br/media/docs/publicacoes/2/TIC_DOM_2016_LivroEletronico.pdf">CETIC.br</a>.</p>
<p>Most Brazilians therefore have unlimited social media access but very little access to the rest of the internet. This likely explains why 95 percent of all Brazilian internet users say they mostly go <a href="https://agenciadenoticias.ibge.gov.br/media/com_mediaibge/arquivos/c62c9d551093e4b8e9d9810a6d3bafff.pdf">online for messaging apps and social media</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the “rest of the internet” is precisely where Brazilians might have verified the political news sent to them on WhatsApp during the 2018 election. Essentially, fact-checking is <a href="https://www.cetic.br/noticia/acesso-a-internet-por-banda-larga-volta-a-crescer-nos-domicilios-brasileiros/">too expensive for the average Brazilian</a>.</p>
<h2>Concern over Africa’s elections</h2>
<p>Democracies in Africa, where more than a <a href="https://theconversation.com/taking-africas-democratic-temperature-as-a-dozen-countries-prepare-for-polls-107675">dozen countries will hold elections in 2019</a>, are vulnerable to the same kind of lopsided access to information that influenced Brazil’s presidential vote.</p>
<p>As in Brazil, many Africans get <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/27/facebook-free-basics-developing-markets">stripped-down internet access</a> through Facebook’s Internet.org and Free Basics platforms. But, worryingly, most African countries have little or no data protection and no <a href="http://www.networkneutrality.info/sources.html">net neutrality</a> requirements that internet providers treat all digital content equally, without favoring specific apps. </p>
<p>In my analysis, Facebook and a handful of tech companies are now racing to <a href="https://www.opendemocracy.net/luca-belli/scramble-for-data-and-need-for-network-self-determination">collect and monetize</a> the data gathered through sponsored apps, allowing them to profile millions of Africans. Lax government oversight means that <a href="http://fortune.com/2017/01/11/nir-eyal-hook-model/">people</a> may never be informed that they pay for these “free” apps by exposing their personal information to data mining by private companies. </p>
<p>Such personal information is exceedingly profitable to advertisers in Africa, where Western-style public polling and consumer surveys is still rare. It is easy to imagine how valuable targeted advertising would be for political candidates and lobbies in the lead-up to Africa’s 2019 elections. </p>
<h2>Move fast and break democracy</h2>
<p>Democracy cannot thrive when the electorate is intentionally misinformed about candidates, parties and policies. </p>
<p>Political debate driven by likes, shares and angry comments on social media increases <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-each-side-of-the-partisan-divide-thinks-the-other-is-living-in-an-alternate-reality-71458">polarization</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-there-are-costs-to-moral-outrage-78729">distorts healthy public discourse</a>. Yet evidence shows that <a href="https://theconversation.com/audiences-love-the-anger-alex-jones-or-someone-like-him-will-be-back-101168">insults, lies and polemics</a> are what best drive the user engagement that generates that precious personal data. </p>
<p>For over a decade, social networks have been associated with free communication, unfettered by gatekeepers like news editors or fact-checkers. Many in Silicon Valley and beyond saw this <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-internet-freedom-a-tool-for-democracy-or-authoritarianism-61956">innovative disruption</a> as broadly beneficial for society. </p>
<p>That can be true when social networks are just one of many ways that people can engage in open and pluralistic debate. But when just a handful of apps are available to the majority of users, serving as the sole channel for democratic dialogue, social media can be easily manipulated to poisonous ends. </p>
<p>Mark Zuckerberg’s longstanding motto was, “Move fast and break things.”
That <a href="https://mashable.com/2014/04/30/facebooks-new-mantra-move-fast-with-stability/">catchphrase was retired in April 2018</a>, perhaps because it is increasingly evident that democracy is among the things that Facebook and friends have left broken.</p>
<p><em>The headline of this story was changed slightly after publication.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/106476/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luca Belli receives funding from the Open Society Foundations, the Council of Europe, the Internet Society. The views expressed in this article do not represent the opinions of any entity with which he is associated.</span></em></p>Facebook retired its ‘Move fast and break things’ slogan – perhaps because, as new research from Brazil confirms, democracy is among the things left broken by online misinformation and fake news.Luca Belli, Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, School of Law, Fundação Getulio VargasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1035472018-10-02T15:44:59Z2018-10-02T15:44:59ZThe EU’s General Data Protection Regulation, four months on<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238659/original/file-20181001-195272-1thdpa6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C29%2C4000%2C2215&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are you taking steps to keep your data safe? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/modern-datacenter-cloud-computing-3d-rendering-653838205">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On May 25, 2018, a new law regulating the collection and use of the personal data of European citizens came into force in all 28 EU member states, the <a href="https://gdpr-info.eu/">General Data Protection Regulation</a> (GDPR).</p>
<p>Compared to the previously applicable text (the 1995 Data Protection Directive), this new regulation further strengthens the protection of European citizens’ personal data, while harmonising protection across the EU. The GDPR officially grants the right to data erasure (a light version of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/13/google-loses-right-to-be-forgotten-case">“right to be forgotten”</a>) while introducing new rights including that of data portability, which obliges data holders to transmit relevant data in a structured format to a new supplier, at the specific request of a citizen. The regulation strengthens existing rights such as the right to explicit and positive consent on the part of the citizen from whom an organisation seeks to collect personal data. Finally, the text reinforces the principle of accountability with respect to all parties responsible for data processing.</p>
<p>Organisations dealing with data have been at action stations for months or even years, depending on how strategic the data is for the market concerned. But, four months after it came into effect, how has it impacted European, more specifically French, citizens? How is this new text perceived? Are they even aware that the new legislation has come into force? Do they feel better protected than previously? Have they changed their habits regarding inappropriate use and protection of their data?</p>
<h2>Limited awareness, limited changes</h2>
<p>To find out, we surveyed French students from a major French business school (<a href="https://www.audencia.com/en/">Audencia Business School</a> in Nantes). More than 300 students, aged between 17 and 29, of whom 58% were women, agreed to answer our questions. There were three major observations:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Awareness of the existence of the GDPR remains limited</strong>, with only 50% of the 312 respondents stating they had already heard of the text. To overcome any limits due to the declarative nature of responses, we then asked respondents to tell us what GPDR stands for. 150 respondents (just under half of our sample) accepted to do this. Among these, 14% finally said they did not know; 20% were able to give a rough outline of the meaning; 13% gave a close approximation, and 52% gave the exact meaning of the acronym.</p></li>
<li><p>Despite the somewhat less than perfect awareness of the text, <strong>it is generally perceived as a good solution to control the way our data is used</strong>. 63% think that the GDPR will be implemented quite well by companies. 58% go further in believing that this type of regulation should change the way companies and their sites collect and use data in the future. However, 42% of them remain, on the contrary, sceptical about the efficiency of the text…</p></li>
<li><p><strong>The new legislation does not seem to have greatly changed users’ behaviour</strong>. The natural tendency of citizens is often to rely on state authorities for protection rather than to take the process of gaining better control of their data into their own hands. 87% of respondents admit not having checked the new terms of use of online services following the implementation of the GDPR. Even more worryingly, only 20% of respondents indicate that they have changed their privacy settings on these sites since the GDPR came into effect. These figures indicate that the majority of young French people have an almost blind trust in these digital services and take a largely passive role in the protection of their identity and personal data.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>This lack of control is all the more surprising since these same individuals state that they feel largely under-informed about how organisations collect and use their personal data. 80% consider they receive insufficient information when companies collect data about them. One-third of respondents even say they do not know whether they approve the use that companies make of their data, while 46% say that they do not really approve it (32%) or even actually disapprove it (14%).</p>
<h2>Impact of the Facebook scandal</h2>
<p>A few months after the emergence of the <a href="http://theconversation.com/its-impossible-for-facebook-users-to-protect-themselves-from-data-exploitation-93800">Facebook–Cambridge Analytica scandal</a>, in which the social platform was accused of allowing access to millions of accounts, we also sought to evaluate the impact this may have had on user practices. Only 23% of respondents indicate they have since changed the way they use the platform. The changes mainly consist of modifying privacy settings (28%), limiting the amount of personal information provided (21%), posting less intimate and sensitive information (15%), a general reduction of activity on the network (11%), sharing fewer photos (9%) writing fewer messages (6%) and finally, less use of “Facebook Connect’ (a tool which allows Facebook users to log on to third party websites via their Facebook account) (4%). Only 3 of the 312 respondents indicate that they have since uninstalled the application.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"976066816836603906"}"></div></p>
<p>Generally, we find here a phenomenon known as the <a href="http://theconversation.com/how-facebook-uses-the-privacy-paradox-to-keep-users-sharing-94779">"privacy paradox”</a>, which describes what is often a wide discrepancy between people’s attitudes toward data itself (generally a strong concern about what digital players know about them and how their data is used) and actions that may be taken to restrict this exploitation (often limited or almost non-existent).</p>
<p>To conclude this survey, we asked the young people what additional measures would improve data protection:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>20% call for greater information, communication and even education on this theme. </p></li>
<li><p>17% advocate an even stricter legal solution with heavier penalties. </p></li>
<li><p>12% believe that more choice and control should be given to citizens, something already provided by the GDPR, probably showing a lack of awareness of the rights that the text confers to them. </p></li>
<li><p>10% consider there should be independent bodies charged with auditing companies and monitoring the proper application of the text, although this role in France has been entrusted to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_nationale_de_l%27informatique_et_des_libert%C3%A9s">National Commission for Information Technology and Liberties</a> (CNIL) since 1978. </p></li>
<li><p>8% think that citizens themselves should be more empowered.</p></li>
<li><p>7% believe that companies should have greater accountability in this area, an idea that is effectively contained in the GDPR.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>To sum up, our respondents call for rights that the new text has in fact anticipated and included. It remains to be seen whether companies play ball or if they just do the bare minimum in terms of applying the legislation. Young people seem to be quite optimistic on this issue – let’s hope they will be proved right.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Caroline Lancelot Miltgen ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>On May 25, 2018, the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force. Four months later, how has the law changed people’s perceptions and behaviour?Caroline Lancelot Miltgen, Professeur de Marketing, AudenciaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1015772018-08-17T10:20:36Z2018-08-17T10:20:36ZFacebook begins to shift from being a free and open platform into a responsible public utility<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232167/original/file-20180815-2897-w4946w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg prepares to testify on Capitol Hill.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Facebook-Privacy-Scandal-FTC/90d03833e2574dc799f2669c9d373206/85/0">AP Photo/Andrew Harnik</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Facebook recently <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/7/31/17635592/facebook-elections-russia-2018-midterms">removed several accounts for trying to influence</a> the 2018 midterm elections, it was the company’s latest move acknowledging the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-facebook-could-really-fix-itself-90367">key challenge</a> facing the social media giant: It is both an open platform for free expression of diverse viewpoints and a public utility on which huge numbers of people – and democracy itself – rely for accurate information.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/how-facebook-could-reinvent-itself-3-ideas-from-academia-94953">Under pressure from the public and lawmakers</a> alike since 2016, Facebook responded in early 2018 by making <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/01/11/facebook-newsfeed-big-change/1023331001/">significant changes to the algorithms</a> it uses to deliver posts and shared items to users. The changes were intended to show more status updates from friends and family – sparking “<a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/01/news-feed-fyi-bringing-people-closer-together/">meaningful interactions</a>” – and fewer viral videos and news articles that don’t get people talking to each other. As a result, <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2018/01/31/mark-zuckerberg-people-spending-50-million-fewer-hours-facebook-reduced-time-people-spend-50-million/1081082001/">users have spent far less time</a> on the site, and the <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/facebook-stock-price-wall-street-thinks-facebooks-big-newsfeed-change-will-be-fine-2018-1-1013067357">company’s stock-market value</a> <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/facebook-warns-investors-of-weakening-revenue-in-second-half-of-2018.html">has dropped</a>.</p>
<p>Yet the problem remains: The very features of social media that <a href="http://cyber.harvard.edu/story/2018-07/understanding-media-and-information-quality-age-artificial-intelligence-automation">encourage participation and citizen engagement</a> also make them vulnerable to <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/7/31/17635592/facebook-elections-russia-2018-midterms">hate speech</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/technology/whatsapp-india-killings.html">fake news</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-russian-government-used-disinformation-and-cyber-warfare-in-2016-election-an-ethical-hacker-explains-99989">interference in the democratic process</a>. This inherent contradiction is what the company must resolve as it shifts from being just one startup company in a crowded marketplace of big-data businesses to a <a href="https://shorensteincenter.org/developing-rules-internet-capitalism/">public information utility with monopoly power</a> and broad social influence.</p>
<h2>No longer a platform</h2>
<p>Facebook continues to struggle with the intersection or convergence of three related developments over the past few years. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JpFHYKcAAAAJ&hl=en">My own research</a> describes the first, the <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2554689">rise of social media networks</a> designed for constant interaction and engagement with users. That enabled the second, getting rid of gatekeepers for news and information: Now anyone can post or share information, whether it’s true or not. And in the third development, these systems have given companies huge amounts of detailed personal information about their users, enabling them to display information – and paid advertisements – <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324096404578354533010958940">matched to an individual’s likes</a>, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324096404578354533010958940">political and religious views</a>, hobbies, marital status, drug use and sexual orientation.</p>
<p>The company’s founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, is most comfortable describing his creation in <a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10105140110214721">terms often used for technology firms</a>, with words like like “connections” and phrases like “bring people closer together.” And the company is still structured as a regular corporation, responsible only for maximizing value for shareholders.</p>
<p>That mindset avoids the fact that Facebook wields societal power on an unprecedented scale. The company’s decisions about what behaviors, words and accounts it will allow govern billions of private interactions, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-countries-that-trust-facebook-the-most-are-also-the-most-vulnerable-to-its-mistakes-93706">shape public opinion</a> and affect people’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-serve-a-free-society-social-media-must-evolve-beyond-data-mining-94704">confidence in democratic institutions</a>. </p>
<p>Facebook used to be about extracting profit from data about its users. Now the company is starting to realize <a href="https://theconversation.com/social-media-companies-should-ditch-clickbait-and-compete-over-trustworthiness-88827">it needs its users’ trust even more than their information</a>.</p>
<h2>Becoming a utility</h2>
<p>What the public expects from a technology company is substantially different from what people expect in, say, a water company or the landline telephone company. Utility companies need to be <a href="http://www.raponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/rap-lazar-electricity-regulation-US-june-2016.pdf">accountable to the public</a>, offering transparency about their operations, providing accountability when things go wrong, allowing verification of their claims and obedience to regulations meant to protect the public interest. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232173/original/file-20180815-2912-1re9n8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232173/original/file-20180815-2912-1re9n8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232173/original/file-20180815-2912-1re9n8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232173/original/file-20180815-2912-1re9n8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232173/original/file-20180815-2912-1re9n8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232173/original/file-20180815-2912-1re9n8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232173/original/file-20180815-2912-1re9n8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232173/original/file-20180815-2912-1re9n8u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Facebook blue, piped directly to the user.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/construction-site-new-water-pipes-ground-756945778">ThomBal/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I expect Facebook will face increasing pressure <a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/for-facebook-political-pressure-mounts-on-mark-zuckerberg/">from politicians</a>, <a href="https://www.engadget.com/2018/03/26/ftc-confirms-facebook-data-security-investigation/">government communications regulators</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-facebook-could-reinvent-itself-3-ideas-from-academia-94953">researchers</a> and <a href="http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/08/the-only-pressure-facebook-understands-is-from-its-rivals.html">social commentators</a> to go beyond filtering out fake news. Soon, the company will be asked to acknowledge what its actual role in democracy has become. </p>
<p>Technological advances mean what used to be extra services – like internet access and social media – are now necessary parts of modern life. Internet service providers are facing similar transitions, as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/understanding-net-neutrality-10-essential-reads-71848">net neutrality policy debate</a> lays ground rules for the future of an open internet.</p>
<p>Facebook has already signaled its understanding of that pressure – and not only with the algorithm changes and the shutdown of the fake accounts leading up to the midterm elections. In a recent court filing in California, Facebook claimed it was a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/02/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-platform-publisher-lawsuit">publisher of information, protected by the First Amendment</a> against possible government regulation.</p>
<p>It’s true that overregulation does run the risk of censorship and limiting free expression. But the dangers of too little regulation are already clear, in the toxic hate, fake news and intentionally misleading propaganda proliferating online and poisoning democracy. In my view, taking no action is no longer an option.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101577/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anjana Susarla does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The strengths of social media are also its weaknesses. Facebook must acknowledge that it has transformed from a startup company into a powerful social force.Anjana Susarla, Associate Professor of Information Systems, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1016462018-08-17T09:42:47Z2018-08-17T09:42:47ZFacebook risks starting a war on knowledge<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232449/original/file-20180817-165943-4h7s9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/london-uk-february-5th-2018-facebook-1018754935?src=JbVPbFQDde-62HmFgBF-Hg-1-0">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Facebook is closing its doors to researchers in the wake of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-data-lockdown-is-a-disaster-for-academic-researchers-94533">Cambridge Analytica scandal</a>. The latest casualty is the app Netvizz, a research tool used by <a href="https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?start=80&q=netvizz&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5">hundreds of academics</a> to gather public Facebook data, that the social network has recently banned. The app has gathered more than <a href="https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=3253515595862406838,12477154559479448799&as_sdt=5">300 academic citations</a> and has been used to produce studies on everything from <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444814538798">Norwegian political party videos</a>, to public opinion about the <a href="https://journals.co.za/content/journal/10520/EJC-90aa17ce9">London 2012 Olympic Games</a>, to <a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7300893/">Asian American student conferences</a>. But now this fruitful source of data has been shut down.</p>
<p>More significantly, Facebook’s action sounds a death knell for civic access to public Facebook data. Inevitably, all apps like Netvizz will be wiped from the platform. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/cambridge-analytica-51337">Cambridge Analytica scandal</a>, which saw Facebook user data gathered supposedly for academic purposes but instead used by a private firm for political campaigning, created an opportunity for positive change. But Facebook sadly appears to be making its platform more opaque, unknown and unaccountable to the public.</p>
<p>Once apps like Netvizz are gone, there will be no accessible way of gathering large amounts of public page Facebook data. Facebook offers only <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-is-restricting-search-results-is-this-taking-transparency-seriously-94762">highly restrictive search options</a> for normal users. It has started new initiatives to offer access to its data for scholarly research, but these are <a href="https://socialscience.one/our-facebook-partnership">dependent on</a> a “hand-picked” group of scholars who “define the research agenda”. Without broader access for other researchers, the social, academic and political consequences are dark.</p>
<p>Netvizz offers users the ability to extract basic data from public Facebook pages, such as the content and frequency of posts, likes, shares and comments. This can be used to analyse what <a href="https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/TG-12-2015-0061">users are discussing</a>, <a href="https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/icsc/2014/4003/00/4003a290-abs.html">how they feel</a> about certain things, or <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0740624X15000672">how they respond</a> to certain content. And this can feed into studies on a huge range of important topics, such as <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428654">how fake news spreads</a> or how social media can <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kiffer_Card/publication/310234109_Gay_Facebook_Examining_User_Engagement_in_Health_Service_Organizations_Serving_Vancouver%2527s_Virtual_GBTQ_Communities/links/582a713a08ae102f071f34c0/Gay-Facebook-Examining-User-Engagement-in-Health-Service-Organizations-Serving-Vancouvers-Virtual-GBTQ-Communities.pdf">affect young people’s</a> mental health.</p>
<p>Netvizz is an internal app within Facebook that uses the social network’s Graph API (application programming interface), a piece of software that provides access to data. Netvizz then organises this data into a spreadsheet format that can be easily read by anyone. Importantly, it doesn’t gather personal data on users. But Facebook’s API is becoming a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/apr/25/facebooks-data-changes-will-hamper-research-and-oversight-academics-warn">closed system</a>, meaning that this basic public data is becoming impossible to access, threatening our knowledge of the world.</p>
<p>Without access to user data in this way, it will be a lot harder to spot patterns in what users are doing and saying on Facebook. In response, Netvizz’s creator, Bernhard Rieder of the University of Amsterdam, <a href="http://thepoliticsofsystems.net/">said</a>: “academic research is set to be funnelled into new institutional forms that offer (Facebook) more control than API-based data access.” He added: “independent research of a 2+ billion user platform just got a lot harder.”</p>
<p>This isn’t just a headache for thousands of academics worldwide. Given the growing influence Facebook has over political debate and behavioural trends, it means that the public could be denied important information that is vital to protecting democracy, social relationships and even <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-too-much-facebook-can-leave-you-feeling-down-40023">public health</a>. </p>
<p>For example, my <a href="https://tristanahotham.wordpress.com/">own research</a> into British political parties’ campaigns on Facebook is set to become much more difficult. Without apps like Netvizz offering a gateway to extract public political content, messages sent to voters during elections will be too discrete to investigate. In this way, society’s capacity to question what political parties are doing is being curtailed by Facebook, undermining democratic accountability and our power to understand politics on social media.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232301/original/file-20180816-2924-1dsvdd5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232301/original/file-20180816-2924-1dsvdd5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232301/original/file-20180816-2924-1dsvdd5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232301/original/file-20180816-2924-1dsvdd5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232301/original/file-20180816-2924-1dsvdd5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232301/original/file-20180816-2924-1dsvdd5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232301/original/file-20180816-2924-1dsvdd5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">User data can reveal things about political parties.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">https://www.facebook.com/labourparty/</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The questionable use of Facebook data by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/13/revealed-aleksandr-kogan-collected-facebook-users-direct-messages">academic researchers</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election">political campaigners</a> in the Cambridge Analytica scandal highlights the need for new privacy and security measures. But Facebook has already successfully altered API access over the last few years, preventing further personal data from being gathered in the manner of Cambridge Analytica, while allowing research with public data to continue.</p>
<p>Facebook had struck the perfect balance between privacy and access. But the company now appears to be building a wall around its data, not to just to protect users but also to protect itself. And in doing so, Facebook is also protecting the powerful, curtailing our ability to scrutinise and question the influence of politicians, corporations and others with the money to spend on large advertising campaigns. By prioritising privacy over transparency, Facebook is setting up a potential ban on this knowledge.</p>
<p>A legal framework is needed to guarantee Facebook users and researchers at least some access to API data for public pages, especially for those of national interest such as political parties, media organisations and government bodies. Facebook must go further than its current restrictive plans and open its data to help promote research and democratic accountability.</p>
<p><a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSepr7com4laLId9z2nOWnw3FADiVCHSQJ1ZkUa3i2fBakcqrw/viewform?usp=sf_link">Several petitions</a> have been started, including one <a href="https://platform.organise.org.uk/campaigns/facebook-public-open">I have launched</a>, to encourage Facebook to do this. But a bigger “#openfacebook” campaign is needed that could work in conjunction with <a href="https://whotargets.me/en">similar campaigns</a> to make targeted advertising more transparent.</p>
<p>It’s still possible for Facebook to rethink its data policy in a way that respects individual privacy and limits the potential for data misuse, but also promotes transparency, accountability and independent research. If Facebook does not alter course, it will catastrophically undermine our ability not only to understand the social network machine and its millions of pages, but also the entire political and social order that the internet has created.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101646/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tristan Hotham receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p>The social network is stopping researchers accessing its data – with significant consequences.Tristan Hotham, PhD Researcher, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/990652018-07-02T22:25:56Z2018-07-02T22:25:56ZWhy the public needs more say on data consultations<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225359/original/file-20180628-117374-1gbhxjf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The transformative nature of our move to a data-driven economy and society means that any data strategy will have long-lasting effects. That's why the Canadian government needs to ask the right questions to the right people in its ongoing national consultations.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government’s recent <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/innovation-science-economic-development/news/2018/06/government-of-canada-launches-national-consultations-on-digital-and-data-transformation.html">announcement of national consultations on “digital and data transformation”</a> was a long time coming. It’s been clear for years that “Big Data” and digital communication technologies are reshaping the foundations not only of our economy, but of society itself, and must be addressed comprehensively. </p>
<p>The Ministry of Innovation, Science and Economic Development will be holding a series of regional roundtables with business, academic and civil society organizations that will include women, Indigenous peoples and other under-represented groups. <a href="http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/084.nsf/eng/home">Canadians can also submit comments online</a>. </p>
<p>These consultations demonstrate that the government recognizes the need for input from Canadians in designing a strategy that will benefit all Canadians.</p>
<p>But while it would be easy to say “finally!” and feel gratitude that the government is going to talk with Canadians about how to address one of the biggest social issues of our time, the consultations’ primary focus on the economic aspects of data governance is too restrictive. It raises questions about whether it will adequately address the breadth of issues a national data strategy must cover.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225360/original/file-20180628-117436-sglls1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/225360/original/file-20180628-117436-sglls1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225360/original/file-20180628-117436-sglls1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225360/original/file-20180628-117436-sglls1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225360/original/file-20180628-117436-sglls1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225360/original/file-20180628-117436-sglls1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/225360/original/file-20180628-117436-sglls1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=568&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Navdeep Bains is seen in the House of Commons during Question Period in Ottawa in June.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Patrick Doyle</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The consultation does get two important things right. It is heartening that Navdeep Bains, the innovation, science and economic development minister, is calling for a diversity of public viewpoints given the all-encompassing nature of the issue. </p>
<p>Also, relying on structured questionnaires rather than just asking Canadians to submit briefs on a “data strategy” will go some way toward compensating for the general lack of deep public understanding of these issues. </p>
<p>That said, some background briefs explaining what something as seemingly simple as what “personal data” actually is would be helpful in producing informed responses. </p>
<h2>Too narrow</h2>
<p>However, despite the emphasis on a diversity of viewpoints, the framing of the consultations themselves is much too narrow. </p>
<p>It emphasizes data governance as primarily an economic and innovation issue, rather than viewing it from a wider perspective that emphasizes both its social and economic elements. That the <a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/4284194/canadians-data-cows-federal-action/">consultations have already begun</a>, with a roundtable featuring 20 industry leaders being held on the day of the announcement, further suggests the unbalanced nature of this process.</p>
<p>Canada’s place in the global data economy is an important issue, and the consultation’s questions do a good job of addressing this particular topic. However, what’s missing is a broader appreciation of data’s place in the wider society.</p>
<p>The possibility that some data should never be collected is not presented as an option in the online consultation questions. For example, should companies be permitted to design or operate facial-recognition systems that amass biometric data, and under what circumstances should governments be permitted to do so? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-time-we-demanded-the-protection-of-our-personal-data-94960">It's time we demanded the protection of our personal data</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The issue of the government’s collection or use of data isn’t addressed. This is a particularly important question given the emerging research highlighting the fact that algorithms and big data sets themselves contain inherent biases. </p>
<p>These issues are highly relevant to the consultations, given the increasingly tight relationships between the public and private sectors.</p>
<h2>Blind spots</h2>
<p>The online questionnaires also have some blind spots.</p>
<p>The issue of trust is linked only to data breaches, and not to the use of data for socially questionable purposes, such as micro-targeting of political ads. They neglect the possibility of social control of data (as opposed to individual or commercial ownership). </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/preventing-social-media-from-interfering-in-canadian-elections-93565">Preventing social media from interfering in Canadian elections</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>They treat privacy as merely a personal issue rather than as a collective one. For example, <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/05/how-the-golden-state-killers-dna-search-is-like-the-cambridge-analytica-scandal.html">one person’s decision to upload a DNA sample to an ancestry site can reveal sensitive genetic information about their entire family</a>. </p>
<p>The questionnaire also fails to mention the important issue of cross-border data flows. Free cross-border data flows can make it easier for Canadian data to leave the country, making it more difficult for the Canadian government to regulate Canadians’ data, while the benefits accrue to non-Canadian entities. </p>
<p>This isn’t to say these consultations won’t have value. But the value will be limited based on what we’ve seen so far. </p>
<p>A proper, full consultation on a national data strategy must begin from a digital-rights perspective of the kind being promoted by the <a href="https://digitalrightsnow.ca/">Digital Rights Now campaign</a>. This campaign, which is being run by the digital-rights organizations Tech Reset Canada, the Digital Justice Lab, and the Centre for Digital Rights, is calling for “a national conversation about digital rights” and a “digital rights strategy.” </p>
<p>Such a consultation and strategy would address innovation and prosperity issues, but within a context that emphasizes the effect of data governance on, “our quality of life, the governance of our economy, and the safety of our democracy.”</p>
<p>The transformative nature of our move to a data-driven economy and society means that any data strategy will have long-lasting effects. Asking the right questions, to the right people, in the right way, is the crucial first step toward creating a policy that is in the best interest of all Canadians.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/99065/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Blayne Haggart receives funding from a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Development Grant (SSHRC) and from the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI). </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natasha Tusikov receives funding from a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Development Grant (SSHRC) and from the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI). </span></em></p>The Canadian government is right to hold public consultations on digital and data transformation given how profoundly it affects society at large. But the scope is far too narrow.Blayne Haggart, Associate Professor of Political Science, Brock UniversityNatasha Tusikov, Assistant Professor, Criminology, Department of Social Science, York University, CanadaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/968382018-06-04T10:37:05Z2018-06-04T10:37:05ZWhen will Google defend democracy?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/220802/original/file-20180529-80623-ieg905.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How does searching affect voting?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/illustration-long-shadow-glass-magnifier-hand-658091983">Blablo101/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the 2018 midterm elections approach in the U.S., Google’s <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html">power to influence undecided voters</a> remains overshadowed by Facebook’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/understanding-facebooks-data-crisis-5-essential-reads-94066">personal data crisis</a>.</p>
<p>Facebook has “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/technology/facebook-silicon-valley.html">taken it on the chin</a>” for its role in the 2016 presidential election, and organizations like the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html">political consulting firm</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-cambridge-analyticas-facebook-targeting-model-really-worked-according-to-the-person-who-built-it-94078">Cambridge Analytica</a> and the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/06/us/politics/document-russia-hacking-report-intelligence-agencies.html">Russian troll farm</a> known as the <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/mueller-indictment-internet-research-agency/">Internet Research Agency</a> have dominated headlines. Yet, despite having a <a href="https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/googles-snoops-mining-our-data-for-profit-and-pleasure">troubling history</a> and collecting <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/technology/personaltech/google-personal-data-facebook.html">more personal data</a> through <a href="https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2013/05/10/15-ways-google-monitors-you">more products</a> than Facebook, Google has somehow managed to evade the public spotlight on this one. That may be changing.</p>
<p>The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recently sent Google a <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-04-10%20CEG%20to%20Google%20-%20Data%20Privacy.pdf">letter asking a series of questions</a> about the company’s personal data protections. As one of the researchers who helped discover that search engines can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112">substantially influence users’ voting preferences</a>, I found the last question to be the most intriguing: “Are you aware of any foreign entities seeking to influence or interfere with U.S. elections through your platforms?” If Google’s response to this question exists, it has not been made public. </p>
<h2>Search engine influence</h2>
<p>Since 2013, I’ve been involved in the design and execution of a <a href="http://aibrt.org/index.php/internet-studies">long series of experiments</a> that have demonstrated how search engines can influence undecided voters’ candidate choices through nearly undetectable manipulations to search rankings. We labeled this powerful new form of influence the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112">search engine manipulation effect</a>.</p>
<p>The way this effect works is simple: Favoritism for a particular candidate in election-related search rankings leads to people preferring that candidate. For example, a search related to an upcoming election might return results favoring candidate A higher than results favoring candidate B. That’s called partisan <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998321">ranking bias</a>. Since people tend to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.x">click on and trust</a> highly ranked results, more people will then trust and consume the information supporting candidate A. In turn, that consumption increases their preference for candidate A. </p>
<p>The most important aspect of this effect, however, is that most people can’t detect the partisan ranking bias – and it’s virtually impossible to defend yourself from <a href="https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-alters-our-thoughts">influences you can’t perceive</a>. Fortunately, in three follow-up experiments, involving 3,600 participants, we demonstrated that alerting people to partisan ranking bias <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3134677">can help suppress the effect</a> – though only laws or regulations actually preventing partisan ranking could eliminate the effect entirely. </p>
<h2>Why focus on Google?</h2>
<p>Google handles <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/267161/market-share-of-search-engines-in-the-united-states/">more than 60 percent</a> of internet search activity in the U.S., and nearly <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/">90 percent worldwide</a>. Every year, this translates to <a href="https://searchengineland.com/google-now-handles-2-999-trillion-searches-per-year-250247">trillions of queries</a> related to people’s private thoughts, concerns and questions.</p>
<p>With respect to news, search engines are a <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Digital%20News%20Report%202017%20web_0.pdf">bigger</a> <a href="https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/how-americans-get-news/">source</a> than social media. Although an often cited 2016 Pew study found that a majority, <a href="http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/">62 percent, of U.S. adults</a> got news on social media, the devil is in the details. If you unpack that statistic, you’ll find that 18 percent do so “hardly ever.” Added to the 38 percent of Americans who “never” got news on social media, the same study suggests that social media is a negligible source of news for 56 percent of Americans, also a majority.</p>
<p><img src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/static_files/files/138/PewGif.gif?1527691715"></p>
<p>Think about it: When you need to fact-check something or learn more about a topic, what do you do? You <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/google">Google</a> it. This fact is supported by a recent international survey that found that <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2944191">74 percent of participants</a> reported using search engines to fact-check information they found on social media. The same survey found that <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2944191">68 percent</a> reported that the information they found while searching was “important to influencing their decisions about voting.” </p>
<h2>What does Google think?</h2>
<p>Google’s executives rarely make public responses to critiques of its search system. But in 2015, my mentor at the time <a href="http://drrobertepstein.com">Robert Epstein</a> published an article in Politico – entitled “<a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html">How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election</a>” – and that did the trick. Google’s head of search at the time, Amit Singhal, responded with his own article, calling Epstein a <a href="https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/google-2016-election-121766">conspiracy theorist</a>, stating that “there is absolutely no truth to Epstein’s hypothesis that Google could work secretly to influence election outcomes” and that “Google has never ever re-ranked search results on any topic (including elections) to manipulate user sentiment.”</p>
<p>Singhal’s first claim is hard to believe, unless you dismiss <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1419828112">our research</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3134677">our replication</a>, and the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3121050.3121074">independent research</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3020165.3020185">built on our findings</a>. Search engines do have the capacity to shift people’s opinions, including who to vote for.</p>
<p>His second claim, that Google “never ever re-ranked search results,” also doesn’t quite hold up: The EU recently fined the company <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/27/technology/eu-google-fine.html">US$2.7 billion</a> for ranking its own services higher in search results than its competitors.</p>
<h2>Defending democracy</h2>
<p>Another one of the <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-04-10%20CEG%20to%20Google%20-%20Data%20Privacy.pdf">Judiciary Committee’s questions to Google</a> also struck a chord with me: “How do you monitor the ability of foreign entities to influence and interfere with U.S. elections?” </p>
<p>This question struck me because I’ve been developing systems for exactly this purpose – preserving search rankings and analyzing them for systematic differences – for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186143">several</a> <a href="http://aibrt.org/downloads/EPSTEIN_&_ROBERTSON_2017-A_Method_for_Detecting_Bias_in_Search_Rankings-AIBRT_WP-17-02_6-1-17.pdf">years</a>. In the course of this work, however, I’ve come to believe that freeing the democratic process from technologically enabled influences is virtually impossible without the cooperation of modern tech giants.</p>
<p>Facebook is now <a href="https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/04/new-elections-initiative/">offering to collaborate with academic researchers</a> who can measure and perhaps lessen or prevent undue influence on elections, and <a href="http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/04/facebook-and-twitter-are-opening-up-a-bit-to-academic-researchers-so-platforms-can-make-better-decisions/">Twitter is doing something similar</a>. Related efforts are also bringing transparency to other platforms like <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/10/opinion/sunday/youtube-politics-radical.html">YouTube</a> and <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/8bb85p/reddits_2017_transparency_report_and_suspect/">Reddit</a>. When will Google get on board?</p>
<p>At an <a href="https://apen18.hans-bredow-institut.de/program/">upcoming conference</a>, I will <a href="http://ronalderobertson.com/static/robertson_icwsm2018_final.pdf">present the latest system</a> I’ve been designing with <a href="https://cbw.sh">Christo Wilson</a>, a leading scientist in the field of algorithm auditing, for monitoring search rankings for partisan bias. With a little assistance from Google, no more than Facebook is offering, accurately monitoring or preventing search engine influence in the 2018 elections is actually a feasible goal. Without the company’s help, things look bleak.</p>
<p>Although Google is an advertising business, its core is composed of creative and intelligent individuals who care deeply about the impact their work has on the world. This is evidenced by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/google-letter-ceo-pentagon-project.html">the recent letter</a> signed by more than 3,100 Google employees protesting the use of their work in warfare technology. Nearly a dozen Google workers went so far as to <a href="https://gizmodo.com/google-employees-resign-in-protest-against-pentagon-con-1825729300">resign in protest</a>.</p>
<p>Perhaps the day is fast approaching when Google will step up, as Facebook, Twitter and Reddit have, to help defend democracy from the new world of computational propaganda. Perhaps there is already a letter circulating internally and gathering signatures. With state and federal primary elections already underway, let’s hope so.</p>
<p><em>Correction: This article was updated on June 11, 2018, to correct the description of Robert Epstein.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96838/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ronald Robertson is supported in part by NSF grants IIS-1408345 and IIS-1553088. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions
or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.</span></em></p>Social media sites aren’t the only online systems that can secretly influence people’s votes. Search engines can too and may be even more successful – and undetectable.Ronald Robertson, Ph.D. Student in Network Science, Northeastern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/939062018-05-01T22:15:35Z2018-05-01T22:15:35ZWhy do we stay on Facebook? It’s complicated<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216893/original/file-20180430-135851-10of5zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A protester wears a mask with the face of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, in between men wearing angry face emoji masks, during a protest against Facebook in London in April 2018. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Alastair Grant)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Lately I can’t log onto Facebook without being asked to consider my own motivations for using the site. </p>
<p>As a researcher who focuses on online communities, I’m accustomed to this running meta-narrative about what it is I’m actually doing online — but usually, that narrative plays inside my head, not all the way down the feed I’m scrolling through. It’s like my research questions have sprung to life these days: What’s Facebook all about, anyway? Is this even fun? If it’s not fun … what is it, exactly? </p>
<p>This is an exciting time in the very short history of social media use. </p>
<p>Facebook’s users are becoming critical of the systems into which they’ve been conscripted. This is an important moment: Will public opinion follow the same well-worn cycle of outrage and acceptance, or will it jump the tracks and begin engaging Facebook on new, more challenging terms? </p>
<p>Researchers have been asking tough questions <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315063279_What_have_we_learned_about_social_media_by_studying_Facebook_A_decade_in_review">about Facebook for the past decade,</a> but even armed with the most prestigious credentials, they pose a much smaller threat than educated consumers. And without consumer outrage, government regulation seems unlikely to move forward.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-not-nationalize-facebook-93816">Why not nationalize Facebook?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>‘Sound and fury’</h2>
<p>So far, at least in my own feed, the same old script is being followed to the letter. The soul-searching is punctuated by passionate cris-de-coeur from the feed’s more opinionated characters: Wake up, sheeple! If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product — remember? <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-we-should-all-cut-the-facebook-cord-or-should-we-93929">Quit Facebook! Encrypt your data!</a> Smash your phone under the heel of your steel-toed boots!</p>
<p>Next, right on cue, the incisive social commentators swoop in to remind us that these calls are coming from inside the house. “Pretty ironic that you’re posting all this stuff on Facebook!” To which everyone silently rolls their eyes in resignation. Cue the gallows humor about how we’re all under constant surveillance, rinse and repeat. The human condition’s same old two-step. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. </p>
<p>That this discursive cycle was triggered by the revelations earlier this year that voter profiling company <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-what-is-cambridge-analytica-and-what-did-it-do-a-guide/">Cambridge Analytica obtained the Facebook data</a> of 50 million American accounts is beside the point. </p>
<p>This is only the latest in a long series of such leaks about data mining. In 2017, approximately 200 million registered voters’ personal data stored by voter profiling company Deep Root Analytics was <a href="https://mashable.com/2017/06/19/200m-voters-exposed-gop-data-leak/#uFUmUS3_i8qD">accidentally made public</a>. The previous year, <a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/">Russian hackers accessed</a> a large cache of voter information owned by the Democratic National Committee.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216933/original/file-20180430-135837-csmtg4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216933/original/file-20180430-135837-csmtg4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216933/original/file-20180430-135837-csmtg4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216933/original/file-20180430-135837-csmtg4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216933/original/file-20180430-135837-csmtg4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216933/original/file-20180430-135837-csmtg4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216933/original/file-20180430-135837-csmtg4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testifies on Capitol Hill on April 11, 2018 about the use of Facebook data to target American voters in the 2016 election and data privacy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>What this latest go-round is revealing is that these are industry practices that will carry on undisturbed, regardless of what Mark Zuckerberg <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/facebook-zuckerberg-congress-election-1.4612495">says or does</a>. This is not a Zuckerberg problem anymore; it’s a problem with an advertising model that is the industry standard.</p>
<p>Most of us Facebook users have been on the platform for about a decade, and perhaps our outrage is our growing pains. </p>
<p>We’ve gained some critical distance through time spent on the platform. We are less easily distracted by the ostensible fun the platform offers. And we appear to be compelled to ask questions about Facebook we’ve never asked before. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-time-we-demanded-the-protection-of-our-personal-data-94960">It's time we demanded the protection of our personal data</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Must ask different questions</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.concordia.ca/artsci/coms/faculty.html?fpid=fenwick-mckelvey">Fenwick McKelvey,</a> co-director of the Media History Research Centre at Concordia University’s <a href="https://milieux.concordia.ca">Milieux Institute for Art, Culture and Technology</a>, wishes that the media would start asking different questions about how data is being used by platforms like Facebook. </p>
<p>“The media narrative still assumes that the goal of these platforms (like Facebook) is to expose people to information,” McKelvey told me. “But it’s less and less about that — the goal is to manage and control people’s behaviour.” </p>
<p>Among the urgent questions media commentators should be asking, McKelvey believes, is how online advertisers are deploying user data to subtly nudge people. He provides the illustrative example of SnapChat — <a href="https://www.snap.com/en-US/privacy/privacy-policy/">a company with relatively strong privacy settings in place</a> — that leaks data to advertisers with dizzying granularity that reflects the industry standard. </p>
<p>Through SnapChat’s protocols, your phone informs advertisers how much time passes between the moment you’re served one of their ads and the moment you make a purchase at their business, either online or in person. </p>
<p>Every time you walk into a retailer with your phone’s location services on, you are leaking data about your consumption habits. </p>
<p>Perhaps we should be burrowing even deeper into Facebook’s business practices. </p>
<p>Facebook tends to rely on the fact that most of its data collection practices are laid bare in its terms of service. But according to <a href="https://www.concordia.ca/research/lifestyle-addiction/about/team/french.html">Martin French, an assistant professor of sociology at Concordia,</a> Facebook’s notion of “consent” is flimsy at best.</p>
<h2>Most unaware of how their data is being used</h2>
<p>“Facebook reportedly changed its policies after 2015 to stop app developers accessing information on app users’ network. But for me the question is: Are Facebook users, in the real world, actually aware of the changing ways their data is being used, and the policies that purportedly govern these uses?” wonders French. </p>
<p>French posits that <a href="https://conferences.sigcomm.org/imc/2011/docs/p61.pdf">based on research</a> that has been <a href="http://maritzajohnson.com/publications/2012-sesoc.pdf">done on who reads and understands social media privacy policies,</a> most users are unaware of how their data is actually being used. The “consent” that Facebook is talking about when they refer to an agreement with their users is not really a kind of consent that conforms to any dictionary definition of that term. </p>
<p>The consensus among social scientists who study life online is that whatever dynamics play out online have offline analogs. </p>
<p>We’ve had a decade to incorporate Facebook into our lives, and like any learning process, our success with it has been uneven. </p>
<p>We’re at a critical moment as users of Facebook. It’s our responsibility to educate ourselves about the implications of our participation. Deactivating our accounts won’t change how our personal data is valued to advertisers.</p>
<p>But perhaps, as we become mature users of social media, we can begin to demand that limits be set on how and when our data is bought and sold.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93906/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathryn Jezer-Morton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We’re at a critical moment as users of Facebook. It’s our responsibility to educate ourselves about how our data is bought and sold.Kathryn Jezer-Morton, Doctoral student , Concordia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/950302018-04-27T10:44:32Z2018-04-27T10:44:32ZThe internet is designed for corporations, not people<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216545/original/file-20180426-175035-vyoh03.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Conversations on Facebook ethics are part of a bigger conversation about information architecture.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Alastair Grant</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Urban spaces are often <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/how-cities-use-design-to-drive-homeless-people-away/373067/">designed</a> to be subtly hostile to certain uses. Think about, for example, the seat partitions on bus terminal benches that make it harder for the homeless to sleep there or the decorative leaves on railings in front of office buildings and on university campuses that serve to make skateboarding dangerous. </p>
<p>Scholars call this <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/06/how-cities-use-design-to-drive-homeless-people-away/373067/">“hostile urban architecture.”</a> </p>
<p>When a few weeks ago, news broke that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/mark-zuckerberg-testify-congress.html">Facebook shared millions of users’ private information</a> with Cambridge Analytica, which then used it for political purposes, I saw the parallels. </p>
<p>As a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZiL1i4kAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">scholar</a> of the social and political implications of technology, I would argue the internet is designed to be hostile to the people who use it. I call it a “hostile information architecture.” </p>
<h2>The depth of the privacy problem</h2>
<p>Let’s start with Facebook and privacy. Sites like Facebook <a href="https://theconversation.com/fragmented-us-privacy-rules-leave-large-data-loopholes-for-facebook-and-others-94606">supposedly protect user privacy</a> with a practice called “notice and consent.” This practice is the business model of the internet. Sites fund their “free” services by <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/opinions/data-company-spying-opinion-schneier/index.html">collecting information</a> about users and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/opinion/facebook-cambridge-analytica.html">selling that information</a> to others. </p>
<p>Of course, these sites present privacy policies to users to notify them how their information will be used. They ask users to “click here to accept” them. The problem is that these policies are <a href="https://theconversation.com/nobody-reads-privacy-policies-heres-how-to-fix-that-81932">nearly impossible to understand</a>. As a result, no one knows what they have consented to. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216550/original/file-20180426-175047-oc20oj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Users are also unable to protect themselves, as opting out of sites like Facebook and Google isn’t viable for most.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/privacy-settings-web-page-computer-screen-308763962?src=2f2sgR6d21LV5AkGj81wMQ-1-57">David M G/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But that’s not all. The problem runs deeper than that. Legal scholar <a href="https://its.law.nyu.edu/facultyprofiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=profile.overview&personid=28509">Katherine Strandburg</a> has <a href="https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol2013/iss1/5/">pointed out</a> that the entire metaphor of a market where consumers trade privacy for services is deeply flawed. It is advertisers, not users, who are Facebook’s real customers. Users have no idea what they are “paying” and have no possible way of knowing the value of their information. Users are also unable to protect themselves, as opting out of sites like Facebook and Google isn’t viable for most. </p>
<p>As I have <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=2533057">argued in an academic journal</a>, the main thing notice and consent does is subtly communicate to users the idea that their privacy is a commodity that they trade for services. It certainly does not protect their privacy. It also hurts innocent people. </p>
<p>It’s not just that most of those whose data made it to Cambridge Analytica did not consent to that transfer, but it’s also the case that Facebook has vast troves of data even on those who <a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/internet-privacy/facebook-tracking-me-even-though-im-not-facebook">refuse to use</a> its services. </p>
<p>Not unrelated, news broke recently that thousands of Google Play apps – probably illegally – <a href="http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2018/04/android_mobile_apps_track_children_study.html">track children</a>. We can expect stories like this to surface again and again. The truth is there is too much money in personal information. </p>
<h2>Facebook’s hostile information architecture</h2>
<p>Facebook’s privacy problem is both a symptom of its hostile information architecture and an excellent example of it. </p>
<p>Several years ago, two of my colleagues, <a href="http://www.celinelatulipe.com/">Celine Latulipe</a> and <a href="https://webpages.uncc.edu/richter/">Heather Lipford</a> and I published <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=1427546">an article</a> in which we argued that many of Facebook’s privacy issues were problems of design. </p>
<p>Our argument was that these design elements violated ordinary people’s expectations of how information about them would travel. For example, Facebook allowed apps to collect information on users’ friends (this is why the Cambridge Analytica problem impacted so many people). But no one who signed up for, say, tennis lessons would think that the tennis club should have access to personal information about their friends. </p>
<p>The details have changed since then, but they aren’t better. Facebook still makes it very hard for you to control how much data it gets about you. Everything about the Facebook experience is very carefully curated. Users who don’t like it have little choice, as the site has a virtual monopoly on social networking. </p>
<h2>The internet’s hostile architecture</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.lessig.org/about/">Lawrence Lessig</a>, one of the leading legal scholars of the internet, <a href="http://codev2.cc/">wrote a pioneering book</a> that discussed the similarities between architecture in physical space and things like interfaces online. Both can regulate what you do in a place, as anyone who has tried to access content behind a “paywall” immediately understands.</p>
<p>In the present context, the idea that the internet is at least somewhat of a public space where one can meet friends, listen to music, go shopping, and get news is a complete myth. </p>
<p>Unless you make money by trafficking in user data, internet architecture is hostile from top to bottom. That the business model of companies like Facebook is based on targeted advertising is only part of the story. Here are some other examples of how the internet is designed by and for companies, not the public.</p>
<p>Consider first that the internet in the U.S. isn’t actually, in any legal sense, a public space. The hardware is all owned by telecom companies, and they have <a href="https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/">successfully lobbied</a> 20 state legislatures to ban efforts by cities to build out public broadband. </p>
<p>The Federal Trade Commission has recently declared its intention to undo Obama-era <a href="http://theconversation.com/understanding-net-neutrality-10-essential-reads-71848">net neutrality</a> rules. The rollback, which treats the internet as a <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=2117497">vehicle for delivering paid content</a>, would allow ISPs like the telecom companies to deliver their own content, or paid content, faster than (or instead of) everyone else’s. So advertising could come faster, and your blog about free speech could take a very long time to load. </p>
<p>Copyright law gives sites like YouTube very strong legal incentives to <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=1577785">unilaterally and automatically, without user consent, take down</a> material that someone says is infringing, and very few incentives to restore it, even if it is legitimate. These takedown provisions include content that would be protected free speech in other contexts; both President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain campaigns had material removed from their YouTube channels in the weeks prior to the 2008 elections. </p>
<p>Federal requirements that content-filtering software is installed in public libraries that receive federal funding <a href="https://ssrn.com/abstract=1288090">regulate</a> the only internet the poor can access. These privately produced programs are designed to block access to pornography, but they tend to sweep up other material, particularly if it is about LGBTQ+ issues. Worse, the companies that make these programs are under no obligation to disclose how or what their software blocks.</p>
<p>In short, the internet has enough seat dividers and decorative leaves to be a hostile architecture. This time, though, it’s a hostile information architecture.</p>
<h2>A broader conversation</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/216553/original/file-20180426-175074-k4z9d8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What should be included in today’s conversations about Facebook?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So let’s do have a conversation about Facebook. But let’s make that part of a bigger conversation about information architecture, and how much of it should be ceded to corporate interests. </p>
<p>As the celebrated urban theorist and activist <a href="https://www.pps.org/article/jjacobs-2">Jane Jacobs</a> <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cit.html?id=P_bPTgOoBYkC">famously wrote</a>, the best public spaces involve lots of side streets and unplanned interactions. Our current information architecture, like our heavily surveilled urban architecture, is going in the opposite direction.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95030/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gordon Hull does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>An expert explains how Facebook’s privacy issues are linked to a bigger problem – a ‘hostile information architecture,’ largely controlled by corporate interests.Gordon Hull, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Director of Center for Professional and Applied Ethics, University of North Carolina – CharlotteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/951822018-04-19T09:58:02Z2018-04-19T09:58:02ZIf it’s free online, you are the product<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215429/original/file-20180418-163962-juyb9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=tTEv2fl2KBqs4-RWdlfwVA-2-13">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg’s recent testimony to congress highlights one of the key issues of our time – data acquisition by digital corporations and its lack of regulation. The kernel of the issue <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/04/10/transcript-of-mark-zuckerbergs-senate-hearing">is in this exchange</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Senator Orrin Hatch: ‘How do you sustain a business model in which users don’t pay for your service?’</p>
<p>Zuckerberg: “Senator, we run ads.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So – ha ha. Let’s laugh at the old guy who doesn’t know how Facebook makes money. The <a href="https://twitter.com/10Yetis/status/983995077180706816">exchange</a> <a href="https://media.makeameme.org/created/senator-we-run.jpg">spawned</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/camppacific/status/984202696159707136">memes</a> that compared Zuckerberg going to congress with people doing tech support for their grandparents.</p>
<p>But this question and its answer expose a conceptual disconnect between the old world and the new. Senator Orrin Hatch asks, quite innocently, if you’re providing a service, how can you do that for free? The answer is, Facebook is not just in the business of providing you with a service. It is also in the business of farming your data. </p>
<h2>Your life for sale</h2>
<p>Media theorist and writer Douglas Rushkoff was among the first to point this out back in 2011. With Facebook <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/article/doug-rushkoff-hello-etsy">you are the product, not the customer</a>. </p>
<p>Facebook’s customers are advertisers and it has built a platform that is designed to help advertisers target customers – forensically. This is not confined to the data you enter into Facebook either. It also includes the data you “tread” into Facebook when you arrive. The purchases you’ve made, the searches you’ve conducted.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215426/original/file-20180418-163962-ia6x5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215426/original/file-20180418-163962-ia6x5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215426/original/file-20180418-163962-ia6x5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215426/original/file-20180418-163962-ia6x5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215426/original/file-20180418-163962-ia6x5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215426/original/file-20180418-163962-ia6x5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215426/original/file-20180418-163962-ia6x5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Facebook’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, faced US Congress for the first time over the data sharing scandal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/search?searchterm=facebook&sort=popular&image_type=all&search_source=base_search_form&language=en&page=2">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a sense, that is all that <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/cambridge-analytica-51337">Cambridge Analytica</a> did. They used Facebook to target specific users with content in exactly the way the platform was designed. It wasn’t selling a bag with lots of cool pockets though. It was selling Trump and Brexit. </p>
<p>It is only now, when we are finally looking at the manipulation of culture rather than purchasing choices, that we are beginning to question the ethical ambiguity of this model. The model where you and your data are the product. </p>
<h2>Regulation is the next step</h2>
<p>No wonder Zuckerberg looked like a deer caught in the headlights in front of congress, even if the questioning is inept and toothless. This is the beginning of a process. A process that could end with transformative, stringent regulation of his business practice or, at the very least, a fight between Facebook and governments over that regulation. </p>
<p>But there’s a problem with this. It’s not just Facebook. With any service that you use online that is free – including all Google services (Docs, Gmail, Search) all social media services (Snapchat, WhatsApp, Twitter) and even Hotmail – your data is the product. Once we start to pull on this thread, once old folks like Senator Orrin Hatch begin to realise just how deeply embedded <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/facebook-was-warned-about-app-permissions-in-2011/">data harvesting</a>, <a href="https://econsultancy.com/blog/64099-what-is-retargeting-and-why-do-you-need-it">retargeting</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/23/doubleclick-tracking-trackers-cookies-web-monitoring">cookie sharing</a> and other ethically ambiguous practices are in digital marketing, where will that take us? </p>
<p>Of course, there will inevitably be discussion of regulation. But who will be responsible for that? In which nation states will the crimes be deemed to have taken place? And will these corporations respect or accept this regulation when it is formulated? </p>
<p>We are talking about the most powerful corporations on the face of the Earth. Alphabet, Microsoft, Facebook – even Amazon which uses data for personalisation and targeting – are all in <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/263264/top-companies-in-the-world-by-market-value/">the world top ten by market value</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215428/original/file-20180418-163986-1r4x58r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215428/original/file-20180418-163986-1r4x58r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215428/original/file-20180418-163986-1r4x58r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215428/original/file-20180418-163986-1r4x58r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215428/original/file-20180418-163986-1r4x58r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215428/original/file-20180418-163986-1r4x58r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/215428/original/file-20180418-163986-1r4x58r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Breaking up with Facebook is harder than you might think.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=tTEv2fl2KBqs4-RWdlfwVA-2-11">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Notice that although Zuckerberg has testified before congress, Cambridge Analytica is located in the UK. He deems himself so above UK law and its institutions that he has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/27/facebook-mark-zuckerberg-declines-to-appear-before-uk-fake-news-inquiry-mps">refused to testify to a UK parliamentary select committee</a> – three times. As inevitable as the discussion of regulation is, very little may actually be done. </p>
<p>Facebook may tighten up its privacy controls and user interface. Google will sigh with relief, because it wasn’t them this time, and you’ll continue to download those apps. Apps that suck up your location data, your Facebook profile and then match you to events that you’ll enjoy in your area based on smoke and mirrors.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95182/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karl Hodge does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Facebook is not just in the business of providing you with a service. It is also in the business of farming your data.Karl Hodge, Course Director, Undergraduate Journalism, Leeds Beckett UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.