Why
Meeting With Zuckerberg Won't Fix The Facebook Problem
(CNN) Debate about Facebook -- rather like
debate on Facebook -- all too often descends into a furious shouting match of
half-truths, conspiracy theories and competing agendas, from which it becomes
all but impossible to discern what's true and what matters.
So
it is with the furor that has brought Mark Zuckerberg, finally, to testify
before Congress amid a series of questions about Facebook, data handling and
privacy.His appearances come alongside allegations that data harvested from
Facebook may have been instrumental in securing the election of Donald Trump
and the decision by the UK to leave the European Union.
Facebook
is long overdue proper scrutiny. It holds masses of information on 2 billion
people -- far larger than the population of any country -- and close to one in
three people on the planet. It
has grown to this size in under two decades, and has consequently had almost no
time to reflect on how its business works.
Facebook
has been disingenuous in many of its defenses and its apologies. The company was aware in 2014 that
numerous third-party apps using its toolkits were harvesting information on the
Facebook friends of people who used them -- as was the case in the Cambridge
Analytica controversy.
It
knew, because this was a built-in feature to its toolkit, which was
discontinued for all apps in 2015. Facebook
knew that Cambridge Analytica had obtained millions of records in 2015, because
it was contacted and informed of the fact by the Guardian newspaper.
When
the story didn't blow up at the time, it took minimal action -- asking the
company to delete the data, but little more. Even
in its more recent statements, Facebook shows chutzpah. One of the
"abuses" it has highlighted to its users is the ability that
companies and individuals had to find people's Facebook accounts by searching
for their email or phone number -- which it says has been done at least once
for virtually all of the 2 billion people using the site.
This
feature, Facebook says, has since been disabled: but savvy users who
understand Facebook's business model might wonder whether this is really about
protecting users' privacy, or a bid to secure Facebook's bottom line.
One
of the social network's best offerings to advertisers is the ability to plug in
their own customer databases -- emails or phone numbers -- in order to target
those individuals, or people like them, on Facebook. Say you have a database of people
who've previously bought your product.
This
feature allows you to target them with an advert on Facebook, offering a
discount to buy again. Facebook can also recommend keywords to find more people
who look like your customers, helping you find new potential buyers. It's a
powerful product. By
making it harder for others to connect Facebook profiles to emails and phone
numbers, Facebook has protected the value of a service that it offers -- unless
(and it certainly hasn't announced this) it intends to revoke that product
entirely.
We
have been hearing soothing noises with minimal detail and virtually no changes
from Zuckerberg and Facebook for more than a decade now. But now, Facebook needs to go far
further than it previously has if it wants to be taken at face value:
otherwise, we should rightly expect it is trying to protect and defend its
existing and highly lucrative business model.
We
need to have a much better-informed debate about how our data -- the bits and
pieces of information that make up virtually every detail of our daily lives,
and our personalities -- is being bought, packaged, and sold.
But
we do also need to place the claims of some of Facebook's critics in their
proper context. According
to Facebook, Cambridge Analytica obtained the personal details of around 87
million people -- including one million Brits.
The
database had previously been referred to as having around 50 million
people in it. It's
possible that the database grew since whistleblowers last saw it -- though it
was impossible to add to it after early 2015. It's also possible that just 50
million of the 87 million harvested were US-based, and that the others were
discarded.
This
is a question that can be answered as more people come in front of
lawmakers, but one that's important to answer. Why?
This one database (and its million UK citizens) has been seized on as a
possible reason to re-run the UK's Brexit referendum.
However,
this data was collected for the purposes of helping US campaigns,
focused on US users. To
suggest this database, which accidentally collected the details of one million
UK users, could have been instrumental in a referendum won by a margin of
around 1.3 million votes is a huge claim and one needing solid evidence
that no one has come close to providing.
Facebook
has found itself at the center of numerous debates -- each of which is
immensely complex and controversial. How
much of our data do we think is acceptable to trade for free social networking?
How much influence did Russian propaganda have on Western elections? Was
improperly harvested data critical to the election of Donald Trump -- or the
UK's vote for Brexit? Should there be limits on what can be advertised on
Facebook -- and who should set them?
Facebook
has a clear agenda when it provides answers to many of these questions. So do
many campaigners bitterly opposed to the outcome of recent elections. Unpicking the truth from the hype and
working out how to deal with the new challenges we find ourselves facing is a
herculean task. It will take far more than Zuckerberg appearing before Congress
to get there.
Passive words found :
1.
Which was discontinued for all apps
in 2015.
2. It
was contacted and informed of the fact by the Guardian newspaper.
3.
It has highlighted
to its users
4.
Has since been disabled
5.
If it wants to be taken at face
value
6. Is
being bought, packaged, and sold.
7.
Had previously been referred
to
8.
And that the others were discarded.
9.
Can be answered
10.
Has been seized
11.
This data was collected for the
purposes
12.
In a referendum won by a margin of
around 1.3 million votes
13.
Can be advertised on Facebook
14. It says has been done at least once
14. It says has been done at least once
No comments:
Post a Comment