Wednesday, August 15, 2018 | ePaper

Post it, don't expect FB to protect your rights

  • Print


Sarah Joseph :
Facebook has had a few bad weeks. The social media giant had to apologise for failing to protect the personal data of millions of users from being accessed by data mining company Cambridge Analytica. And now, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, is due to appear at congressional hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday over political consultancy's use of customer data.
In some ways, social media has been a boon for human rights - most obviously for freedom of speech.
Previously, the so-called "marketplace of ideas" was technically available to all (in "free" countries), but was in reality dominated by the elites. While all could equally exercise the right to free speech, we lacked equal voice. Gatekeepers, especially in the form of the mainstream media, largely controlled the conversation.
But today, anybody with Internet access can broadcast information and opinions to the whole world. While not all will be listened to, social media is expanding the boundaries of what is said and received in public. The marketplace of ideas must effectively be bigger and broader, and more diverse.
Social media played a major role in co-ordinating the massive protests that brought down dictatorships in Tunisia and Egypt, as well as large revolts in Spain, Greece, Israel, South Korea, and the Occupy movement. More recently, it has facilitated the growth of the #MeToo and #neveragain movements.
The bad and the ugly
But the social media "free speech" machines can create human rights difficulties. Those newly empowered voices are not necessarily desirable voices.
The UN recently found that Facebook had been a major platform for spreading hatred against the Rohingya in Myanmar, which in turn led to ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Video sharing site YouTube seems to automatically guide viewers to the fringiest versions of what they might be searching for. A search on vegetarianism might lead to veganism; jogging to ultra-marathons; Donald Trump's popularity to white supremacist rants; and Hillary Clinton to 9/11 trutherism.
YouTube, via its algorithm's natural and probably unintended impacts, "may be one of the most powerful radicalising instruments of the 21st century", with all the attendant human rights abuses that might follow.
Business model and human rights
Human rights abuses might be embedded in the business model that has evolved for social media companies in their second decade.
Essentially, those models are based on the collection and use for marketing purposes of their users' data. And the data they have is extraordinary in its profiling capacities, and in the consequent unprecedented knowledge base and potential power it grants to these private actors.
Indirect political influence is commonly exercised, even in the most credible democracies, by private bodies such as major corporations. This power can be partially constrained by "anti-trust laws" that promote competition and prevent undue market dominance.
Anti-trust measures could be used to hive off Instagram from Facebook, or YouTube from Google. But these companies' power essentially arises from the sheer number of their users: in late 2017, Facebook was reported as having more than 2.2 billion active users.
Power through knowledge
In 2010, Facebook conducted an experiment by randomly deploying a non-partisan "I voted" button into 61 million feeds during the US mid-term elections. That simple action led to 340,000 more votes, or about 0.14 per cent of the US voting population. This number can swing an election. A bigger sample would lead to even more votes.
So Facebook knows how to deploy the button to sway an election, which would clearly be lamentable. However, the mere possession of that knowledge makes Facebook a political player.
It now knows that button's the political impact, the types of people it is likely to motivate, and the party that's favoured by its deployment and non-deployment, and at what times of day.
It might seem inherently incompatible with democracy for that knowledge to be vested in a private body. Yet the retention of such data is the essence of Facebook's ability to make money.
Micro-targeting
A study has shown that a computer knows more about a person's personality than their friends or flatmates from an analysis of 70 "likes", and more than their family from 150 likes. From 300 likes it can outperform one's spouse.
This enables the micro-targeting of people for marketing messages - whether those messages market a product, a political party or a cause. This is Facebook's product, from which it generates billions of dollars. It enables extremely effective advertising and the manipulation of its users.
This is so even without Cambridge Analytica's underhanded methods.
Advertising is manipulative: that is its point. Yet it is a long bow to label all advertising as a breach of human rights.
Advertising is available to all with the means to pay. Social media micro-targeting has become another battleground where money is used to attract customers and, in the political arena, influence and mobilise voters.
While the influence of money in politics is pervasive - and probably inherently undemocratic - it seems unlikely that spending money to deploy social media to boost an electoral message is any more a breach of human rights than other overt political uses of money.
Yet the extraordinary scale and precision of its manipulative reach might justify differential treatment of social media compared to other advertising, as its manipulative political effects arguably undermine democratic choices.
As with mass data collection, perhaps it may eventually be concluded that that reach is simply incompatible with democratic and human rights.
Finally, there is the issue of the spread of misinformation.
Perhaps social media's purpose - the posting and sharing of speech - cannot help but generate a distorted and tainted marketplace of fake ideas that undermine political debate and choices, and perhaps human rights.
What next?
It is premature to assert the very collection of massive amounts of data is irreconcilable with the right to privacy (and even rights relating to democratic governance). Similarly, it is premature to decide that micro-targeting manipulates the political sphere beyond the bounds of democratic human rights.
Finally, it may be that better speech and corrective technology will help to undo fake news' negative impacts: it is premature to assume that such solutions won't work.
At the very least, we must now seriously question the business models that have emerged from the dominant social media platforms. Maybe the Internet should be rewired from the grassroots, rather than be led by digital oligarchs' business needs.

(Sarah Joseph is Director, Castan Centre, Monash University. Courtesy: The Conversation)

More News For this Category

Cure for Twitter addiction

Cure for Twitter addiction

Steve Albrecht  :Same thing happened when Monica Lewinsky, Lou Diamond Phillips, Dan Harris, Adam Carolla, and Dr Drew retweeted something I wrote. I felt a physical buzz that bordered

Salt — a silent killer in your food

Salt — a silent killer in your food

Judith Wurtman  :A few months ago we dined with friends in a restaurant featuring small plates of 'interesting food' that were meant to be shared by everyone at the

Music for mind and soul together

Music for mind and soul together

Md Saiful Islam Masum :Music always refreshes mind and soul together. Music and instrumental flute have a immense contributions over minds. Minds often become tired, exhausted and clumsy due

Set boundaries for work-life integration

Set boundaries for work-life integration

Bryan Robinson :The new buzz phrase, "work-life integration," has been batted around by major corporations - eschewing the term "work-life balance," considered to be a dinosaur of the 1990s.

Dementia risk greater in people who feel light headed while standing up

Dementia risk greater in people who feel light headed while standing up

Life Desk  :People who feel faint, dizzy while standing up fast tend to have a greater risk of stroke, finds a new study. The findings of this study are

Breast-feeding is best even in emergency situations

Breast-feeding is best even in emergency situations

Teresa Welsh :In the aftermath of the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the international aid community worked to respond to immediate needs of millions of people lacking access to food,

Stress free living

Dr. Feroza Begum (Emily) :Each and every person desire to have a happy, healthy and peaceful life. It is his/her wish and requirement to live a tension and stress-free livelihood.

Children Act 2013 and Child help desk

Children Act 2013 and Child help desk

Life Desk :Any child can take part of any kind of offence or crime due to bad company. Also they commit crime because of the pressure of any other person.

Smokers vague on benefits of lung cancer screening

Life Desk :People at risk of lung cancer are mistaken about the benefits and limitations of regular lung cancer screenings, according to a study by the Veterans Affairs (VA)

Drugs may affect teeth and gums

Drugs may affect teeth and gums

Life Desk :Many commonly used prescription and over-the-counter medications have a negative impact on oral health. These could even include vitamins, minerals and herbal medicines.The clinical pattern of these