Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, was called to testify in front of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce committees and later the House Energy and Commerce committees following the 2016 election and Cambridge Analytica scandals.
He was asked a variety of questions, from whether Facebook uses your phone's microphone for ads to how they will handle data breaches in the future.
Zuckerberg reportedly prepared for his hearing like it was a presidential debate with a team of experts that even included a former special assistant to George W. Bush. The hearing was described by many media outlets as a "grilling session", however, Zuckerberg handled the hearing incredibly well. He did say he felt personally responsible for the current events.
A quick summary of the hearings:
- Zuckerberg had to dispel common myths about Facebook "listening in" on conversations and also explain how its business model works to senators who didn't quite understand. Many Senators also criticized Facebook's business model.
- Addressing concerns about foreign countries buying election ads, Zuckerberg said that Facebook is going to “require a valid government identity and then verify the location”, however when pressed if he was able to identify shell companies with this method he said he couldn't. He also said that Facebook is successfully blocking fraudulent ads in other countries with AI and that technology will be applied to US elections in the future.
- When asked why Facebook didn't report the data leak to the FTC, Zuckerberg said that Facebook requested that Cambridge Analytica delete the data it received in violation of Facebook's ToS and that they believed it was a "closed case" (obviously, that didn't happen). Zuckerberg also said Facebook has restricted third party apps' access to user data and that they are currently investigating all current apps.
- Many congressmen called for varying degrees of regulation on user data. Zuckerberg said he wasn't opposed to regulation as long as it's the "right regulation". He was okay with a call for companies to be required to notify consumers about data breaches within 72 hours.
For starters, the 'scandals' surrounding Facebook are blown way out of proportion. The Facebook ads that the Russians purchased during the 2016 election weren't really meant to change anybody's vote, instead, they were designed to divide the country, giving people on both sides of the spectrum simple-minded slogans and rhetoric to reinforce the views they already have. Cambridge Analytica didn't 'hack' Facebook, they bought the data from a third party Facebook applet in violation of Facebook's policies. I don't like how social media shelters people from opposing views, nor do I like how Facebook handled the leak, it's just that it's not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.
Many congressmen pressed Zuckerberg, going as far as saying "your user agreement sucks". Undoubtedly they do not like Facebook's business model of giving you free content in exchange for your data and eyeballs. There is a discussion to be had - is it ethical to collect and store preference data for targeted ads? How clear do companies need to be in their privacy policies? If users consent to this business model, is Facebook really violating people's privacy? Personally, I believe it to be ethical and beneficial if Facebook, Google, etc continue to be the middlemen. Companies that collect data and simply sell it are a different story.
Regulation can improve market outcomes, but it can also hurt them. Other nations like the EU have data safety laws and the "right to be forgotten". However, the U.S.'s lenient approach very well could have allowed the tech giants to grow and prosper here in the first place, bringing jobs, wealth, etc. I don't think we should go as far as the EU, but making privacy policies clearer and notifying users about a data breach should be on the table.
Questions:
1.) Are you personally concerned about how much companies like Facebook and Google know about you?
2.) Do you believe in data regulation? To what extent?
3.) Should internet content continue to be funded by ads, or should companies explore different business models?
4.) Is social media a net good for society?
Sources/Further Reading:
https://media.wired.com/photos/5acd15fe4e39060f2e49e9a2/master/pass/HowtoWatchZuck_18100667406080.jpg
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-zuckerberg/zuckerberg-resists-effort-by-u-s-senators-to-commit-him-to-regulation-idUSKBN1HH1CU
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/politics/mark-zuckerberg-testimony.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-zuckerberg/facebooks-zuckerberg-unscathed-by-congressional-grilling-stock-rises-idUSKBN1HI1CJ
https://youtu.be/woEq42aKEI4
https://qz.com/1248979/senate-testimony-on-cambridge-analytica-mark-zuckerberg-is-standing-trial-for-the-entire-tech-industry/
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-testimony-key-points.html
5 comments:
There's definitely a lot of surveilance that goes on behind the scenes for social media companies. It's how they earn most of their money: by selling their users' information to third party companies. I'm pretty concerned about how much they know, but at this point it's a bit too late. Social media is definitely useful, but until we get some sort of decentralized social media platform in the future, everything is going to Facebook.
I think that the amount of information that companies such as Facebook and Google potentially know about their users is a cause for concern. These big companies know much more personal information than just names and basic info, and it could easily be used in a criminal way, such as identity theft. However, I'm sure that these companies keep the access to this information secure for the most part. I also think that ads are probably the most reasonable and feasible method for funding for companies. If another way to fund is possible, however, that should be pursued instead. Overall, I think social media is a great way to communicate with other people, but it can definitely be exploited or abused.
What is most concerning to me personally, is I don't even know the type of data companies such as Google and Facebook have access to. There is very little transparency when it comes to large companies and their data collection. There is no way to find out what information they have access to or how they use it. Although I would still not feel completely comfortable with large companies having my data, I would feel a little bit better if I at least knew what they were looking at and why.
I'm sure that all of this information is very secure considering the quality of security that companies like Facebook have, but that doesn't mean a major breach cannot happen. There is potential for millions of peoples' sensitive information to be leaked or used in an even more malicious way. I think, for this reason, regulations improving the clarity of the type of information these companies are gathering should be implemented so that users aren't unknowingly giving up information that they would otherwise not want to share. People should also be a bit more conscious of the type of information they're sharing on the internet at the same time.
I think that how much information tech companies collect can actually be helpful. For example, if they know my location, they can refer me to good restaurants or find the closest store to me. The only problem I can see is if this information falls into the wrong hands and is misused. I agree with Lydia that there needs to be more transparency about what data is being collected because no one reads the terms and conditions before agreeing to them and the language used is not easily understandable to the average person. I am not sure how else internet content should be funded because it seems reasonable to give people ads based on their hobbies and interests.
Post a Comment