Facebook Privacy: Why it Doesn't Matter Much to Me

Recently, there has been a lot of negative attention focused on Facebook's changing privacy policies.

Upon learning that things on my profile might become less private, I hurried to check my privacy settings. Almost everything on my wall can be seen by friends only. It was really easy to do. I clicked about 3 buttons/links to change my settings.

I scratched my head, wondering why people are so freaked out by changes that are easily addressed and tweaked. Seriously, people, this isn't rocket science.

But then I remember that I belong to the digital generations, the ones who grew up around computers. I doubt my mother would have been able to figure out her privacy settings so easily.

Still, I feel like nothing much has drastically changed for me regarding privacy. 

We all know the government listens in on our phone conversations. They minister basically everything digital we day and do. This isn't old news. So I'm not sure why the idea of face-recognition and privacy changes are such a big deal to people.

Our privacy has already been compromised. As long as I'm not posting pictures that make sure I don't get hired (and I don't) then I should be fine. There's nothing on my Facebook wall I don't mind the public seeing. Everything else is hidden. 

Bellyachers need to understand how to use the tools at their disposal, or not use them at all. We gave up privacy a long time ago, with the advent of the Web, but we can still manage what the public sees.

Official Post #3 (Social Media and the Information Age)

Information is:

·         Food

·         Input-Output

·         Data

·         Always biased

·         Power (remember the 6 companies mainly in charge)

·         Always mediated (affected by the media it comes through, there is no such thing as neutral info)

Social Media is:

·         an interactive web platform

·         connecting people

·         communal value

·         online mob mentality

·         the best way to reach most Americans these days (87% of U.S. adults have acess to the Internet)

·         SOCIAL NETWORK SITES

o   “as web-based services that allow individuals to (1)

construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate

a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse

their list of connections and those made by others within the system. The nature and

nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site” (Boyd)

§  Twitter, Google+, YouTube, Facebook, etc.

 

Social Activism is:

·         intentionally identifying/fixing injustice

·         valuable online information circulation

o   ex: PETA actually wins over supporters against certain products that abuse animals, by using SM)

·         intentional social changes

·         participatory civic value

·         Gladwell believes it’s putting yourself in high-risk situations (his example: being chased with clubs all afternoon)

·          

Online Activism is:

·         activism reinvented to fit modern technology

o   activism has always used the available means for addressing social injustice; these days, the web can be such a tool (and a very successful one at that)

·         pursuing social justice via the Web/ digital campaigns for social causes

·         involvement in activism “at home” (made possible by the web)

Slactivism is:

·         what Andresen calls “taking easy  social actions in support of a cause.”

o   includes liking things on Facebook, sharing posts, signing petitions, etc.

o   NOT what Gladwell refers to as “real” activism

·         more effective than Gladwell lets on, according to Mirani

o   for example, see the Twitter coverage of the Sudan Revolts, otherwise hushed by other forms of the media

·         viewed both negatively and positively by different parties (see Gladwell and Mirani for example)

·         can actually “get things done”

o   ex: In Canada, PETA got locals to sign petitions online and shut down a local roadside menagerie sighted for neglect

What activism looks like in 2014:

·         connecting and collaborating through online platforms

·         larger activist events taking place thanks to organizing tool of the Web and social media

·         a new hybrid breed of activism (combining online activism with offline activism)

An Article on the Future of the Web

I was looking at the New York Times website, where they have an interesting and handy section dedicated to "Technology." I found this article there.
Apparently, the Web is turning 25 tomorrow (Wednesday, 3/12/14)!
The creators, naturally, have a lot to say about their hopes and fears for the Web.
What I found highly interesting is that Mr. Berners-Lee, and the other creators, "worry that companies and telecommunications outlets could destroy the open nature that made it flourish in their quest to make more money" (NY Times).
This just shores up my idea that huge mega-companies (and there's only 6 mega-ones in the world, as we learned in class) will exploit the web for purely capitalist reasons. I mean, that's what corporations do, isn't it? Make money?
Reading the article further, it becomes clear that there is good news. Nobody panic. The Web is currently where "every minute, billions of connected people send each other hundreds of millions of messages, share 20 million photos and exchange at least $15 million in goods and services" (NY Times). So the Web doesn't completely belong to Disney and Nestle and other companies.
Does that mean sites like Facebook and YouTube haven't succumbed to adverting and other clear indicators of the dollar sign? Absolutely not! There are ads you must watch before you can view most YouTube videos, these days.

Mr. Bernes-Lee (writer of the first web page editor and web browser) has a warning for us web users. He warns us that there is a current battle around "network neutrality," which is essentially the idea that Web content should flow freely through the internet regardless of creator/origin.

Obviously, big companies like Apple will want to use the Web to do what they do best ($$$$$), which will turn the internet into anything but a neutral medium.

"The openness of the web is really, really important," say Mr. Bernes-Lee, and I tend to agree with him. “It’s important for the open markets, for the economy and for democracy" (NY Times).

This seems to be a bigger issue than I thought. If "large telecommunications companies took control of the web," the repercussions for web-users could be astounding. Mr. Barnes-Lee and others worried about the future of the net will attempt to spread awareness of this issue in the near-future.

Already, we just have to look around to see how the 6 huge corporations are infiltrating our lives, whether it be through ad campaigns or the prolific use of products they sell. I, for one, do not want the Web to lose any of its dwindling neutrality. As a lowly American citizen with no hopes (really) of ever becoming CEO of a mega-corporation, the commercialization of the Web is a scary thought. Control the Web, and these companies will have access to over 87% of the American adult population.

It all rather sounds like a plot from a scifi novel. The web has been invented, now we must wait for it to gain users as a neutral medium before swooping in and making it ours!! Muhahahaha!!

No thank you.

Official Blog Post#2

PETA uses social media in a very aggressive manner. A lot of what is generally known about this organization reflects its use of sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube. When people hear “PETA,” they tend to think of slap-in-the-face ad campaigns like the shocking animal treatment videos PETA loves to publicize. This comes from PETA’s heavy-handed, attention-grabbing methods such as shocking memes, photos, and video. Another way PETA is seen by the general public is scientifically incorrect, that is, using false information to gain followers and to scare people into choosing the vegan lifestyle.

I like to think of much of PETA’s campaigns as scare tactics. A lot of it seems to point the finger; and a lot of times, people seem to have negative reactions to this type of circulation method. Another famous campaign of PETA's is the "I'd Rather Go Naked" one, feautring all sorts of nearly-nude celebrities. This campaign leaves me scartching my head and thinking, Why?

However, not all of PETA’s social network sites focus on the just the negative things or naked celebreities. The Tumblr site, for example, is more geared towards detailing how to live a vegan, animal-cruelty-free lifestyle by including vegan recipes and fashion ideas. If members of PETA actually choose to adopt these lifestyle changes, then they step out of the realm of “slactivism,” as the new, digital form of activism had been called, as noted by Katya Andresen. “Slactivists take easy, social actions in support of a cause….[they] tend to get a bad rap: they lack real commitment, care only about self-satisfaction and don’t contribute to meaningful change” (Andresen). Adopting a new lifestyle is a way to actively support PETA’s animal-rights cause. But “slactivist” ways to support PETA abound as well, and these ways can actually make a difference, too. For example: petition-signers and locals in Alberta, Canada were able to rally under PETA’s banner and shut down a roadside menagerie where hundreds of animals lived in horrible conditions.

Malcom Gladwell believes that “the platforms of social media are built around weak ties…[which] seldom lead to high-risk activism” (Gladwell). Gladwell seems to think that activism only counts if it is high risk, if it involves “spending a summer being chased by armed men in pickup trucks” (Gladwell). But let’s be real here. The strength PETA likes to harness—and harnesses most efficiently—is the strength of numbers. According to Gladwell, everyone who did not run into the decrepit Canadian menagerie and bludgeon the owners with clubs did not participate in what he sees as “the right” form of activism. PETA could have organized this, but it did not. PETA succeeded in shutting down the menagerie without resorting to the risky activism Gladwell praises so highly. PETA used slactivists to successfully promote its animal rights goal, and shut down a place that was harming animals. Clearly, Gladwell is wrong—slactivism gets things done. Not everyone has to risk life and limb for the cause they want to support. Some revolutions simply cannot be won through Gladwell’s type of activism.

I do partly agree with Gladwell that some causes need risky, offline support; however, social networks are just tools. A club is a tool, a protest sign is a tool, one’s body is a tool. It is up to the rebels to use these tools as they will. Leo Mirani states that “Gladwell ignores the true significance of social media, which lies in their ability to rapidly spread information about alternative points of view that might otherwise never reach a large audience” (Mirani). 

Call me forward-thinking, but I completely agree with Mirani. 

PETA, for example, may promote “facts” that are actually not completely true—but at least they are using SM to allow people to see that there is a problem. When battling corporations such as zoos and product-testing companies, PETA needs to rely on first alerting people of the problem, then getting the numbers to boycott or petition against these organizations. Its methods may not always be the most effective, but PETA uses both activism and slactivism to promote animal rights around the world.