from The Guardian, UK
The social network’s new feature allows its users to promote their friends’ posts, even if they don’t want them to
Photograph: Joerg Koch/AP
Facebook announced the launch of a new feature on Friday that allows users to pay to promote their friends’ posts. In return for a fee, Facebook promotes the post so that more people see it.
Promoted posts don’t function outside of Facebook’s regular privacy settings, so people who can’t normally see a status update won’t be able to see posts that have been promoted.
Still, the new feature has already sparked privacy concerns because you don’t have to give your consent for a post to be promoted by one of your friends.
Facebook insists the new feature is intended to be helpful to users, giving friends the opportunity, for example, to promote posts about charitable activities: “If your friend is running a marathon for charity and has posted that information publicly, you can help that friend by promoting their post to all of your friends,” Facebook said in a statement.
But users could just as easily promote embarrassing status updates in jest or out of cruelty.
To use the new feature, which applies to users with fewer than 5,000 friends and subscribers, you select the drop-down menu on the top-right corner of a friend’s status update, select “promote and share”, and pay the $7 fee. (Facebook is experimenting with the price.)
The launch of the feature illustrates how Facebook regards status updates: commodities that can be monetized. Whether or not the feature will generate any significant revenue for the company still remains to be seen, however.
Rumor has it that Linkedin is experimenting with a similar feature too, with a roll-out expected some time this year.
Commentary:
1.After reading the article, write a 200-300 word response for each of these two questions.
Q1) Who are the parties involved and what are their roles in the issue? What is happening and why?
Primarily, the party that is involved is Facebook. Facebook has served the world as a social networking service, providing us with the ability to communicate with our family and friends effortlessly by providing a common virtual space on the Internet. The need for the ability to disseminate information within the community we live in is very demanding in the inter-connected society we live in. Having the ability to reach out to the society on-the-go is essential, something one must have, or will be left lagging behind in the fast paced society of today. As the world progresses, the demand for network services will rise as the amount of information that needs to spread increases. And it is Facebook’s responsibility to keep up with societal expectations and demands.
Another party involved would be the users of Facebook. The usage of Facebook is largely widespread in the interconnected society we live in. Coupled with the invention of the smartphone, a social network platform such as Facebook enables information to be disseminated easily due to the fact that it is ‘portable’ on our smartphone. It is almost a given that everyone possesses a smartphone in the developed countries and as such, almost if not all information of daily commentaries, updates and news are posted virtually online. The way information is spread within our societies is in such a way that a social networking service like Facebook has become an integrated part of our lives.
Q2) How has this issue impacted various stakeholders? (Brainstorm using PRESMS. You should examine the impact on at least 2 stakeholders.)
Facebook has launched its new feature, one that allows users to pay to promote their friends’ posts. By improving its capability as a social networking platform, Facebook will be able to bring its reputation to new heights. This is most likely an initiation taken by Facebook to enhance its capability to spread information, catering to the needs demanded by the society. This could also be an action to pioneer a new form of advertisement to open Facebook’s exposure to newer markets and increase revenue. Either way, Facebook has to manage this new feature such that it does not clash with the privacy concerns of the public which could result in undesirable outcomes.
Users who often use Facebook now have the ability to promote their friends’ posts. And because you don’t have to give your consent for a post to be promoted by one of your friends, this has led to rising concerns of privacy, whether or not such a feature is able to meet the demands of the users without interfering with their security. If posts are advertised undesirably by other people in jest or out of cruelty, this could result in tension between the involved parties which defeats the original purpose of advertising for a better cause. On the other hand, this new feature will enable users to reach out to a broader community space as they are now empowered with the ability to advertise posts at an affordable cost in comparison to those like television commercials or ads.
Discussion Questions
1) This is another example of a string of controversial privacy regulations Facebook has put in place. What are some of the other controversial regulations that have surfaced?
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
I think issue itself is rather iffy. Facebook can be categorized as a firm as well, and most firms are of course, profit-driven. Hence, expecting online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy is not totally fair – their aim is after all, to earn profit. However, as users of these social-networking sites, we would expect these sites to ensure our privacy, despite us being the ones who made the choice to post things on these sites. I suppose it is just human nature, that we want the best of both worlds – the benefits that come with the technological age (in this case, being connected easily through Facebook) and yet, we do not want to put ourselves in the case whereby we are vulnerable to having our personal information leaked, which is rather ironic. Rather than putting all the responsibility of ensuring privacy on the social-networking site, it is also boils down to the ethics of the user – the privacy of what your friends post online is equivalent to keeping their secret safe when they confide in you. Nothing is ever completely safe when you post it on the Internet, even with privacy settings. In this digital age, anything and everything can be tracked down simply. Therefore, it is every individual’s responsibility to ensure their own safety online and to respect the privacy of others online. Thus, the responsibility of ensuring privacy not only lies on the social-networking sites, but more importantly, the users of these sites.
2) I feel that it is not fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy. Although many may think that facebook should be responsible for its users’ privacy, i feel that facebook is merely a platform for social networking and its users’ privacy ultimately lie in their own hands. Furthermore, i agree with Samantha’s point that it is not totally fair for facebook, being a firm and profit-driven, to be ethical in terms of ensuring our privacy, and this further reinforces my point. And yes, the irony lies in the fact that we are the ones who are broadcasting ourselves to the world, yet we do not wish for our privacy to be compromised. Moreover, it is a formidable challenge for facebook, given its millions of users, to please everyone. Therefore, the most effective course of action to ensure privacy lies in the root of the issue- it should be responsible media posting and sharing by everyone.
Q2: I do not think that it is fair that we should expect social networking sites such as Facebook to be ethical with how they deal with the privacy issues of the individual. Personally, in this issue, I feel that it is more of the case of the individual expecting and chasing for the ideal scenario where we are able to post our information online, but yet, allow it to remain private to viewers. However we have to understand that this win-win scenario is not very achievable as Facebook is after all, a corporation that will work to the vested interest of the firm and not the welfare of the users. In a nutshell, we should be conscious of what we can post online and on the World Wide Web, and recognise the fact that privacy settings may not be as effective as they are made out to seem.
I agree with Jean on this matter. Through even posting things on social networking sites, private or not, we have to be aware that they can be accessed by anyone and can be utilized in any way. We should be aware and careful of whatever we choose to publish to the world. Regardless of the firms vested interests, by opening our own personal lives to the world, our information can also be obtained by stalkers or used against us by our Facebook “friends”. Hence, to expect our information to not be used in any way would be wrong.
2. Facebook has consistently faced criticism over privacy issues, but one common topic that has sparked much debate is just how much blame we can push to Facebook, if it is the users themselves who willingly and knowingly choose to upload private information onto the social networking website.
I feel that Facebook is expected to maintain a certain standard in the protection of its users’ privacy. The minimum level should be providing users with the option of controlling how public certain information should be made. As a social networking site, Facebook is used by people with the intention of sharing information about their personal lives. More often than not, when this information is only intended to be shared with one’s close friends and relatives, users have the option of only enabling their Facebook ‘friends’ to view this information, rendering other Facebook users unable to access this information. Similarly, Facebook should thus require users to first provide consent before another user can promote their ‘status’.
However, I feel that beyond providing users with the option of deciding how public their information should be, Facebook should not be expected to be responsible for much more. Facebook did not steal private information from its users; users chose to upload such personal information onto the internet. If Facebook provides the necessary privacy options, the responsibility then falls entirely onto the user to ensure that the right kind of information is made public. Users themselves are aware of the consequences of sharing certain information online, and Facebook cannot be responsible for what users choose to reveal about themselves if privacy options have already been made available to them.
I feel that Facebook must be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy by making the necessary privacy options available to users. Once this is done, the responsibility falls onto the user to protect themselves.
1) This is another example of a string of controversial privacy regulations Facebook has put in place. What are some of the other controversial regulations that have surfaced?
Here are a few examples extracted from http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/09/25/f-facebook-privacy-list.html
2006: News feed
When Facebook launched “news feed” in 2006, it angered many users by not giving them control of who could see their updates, or the ability to opt out.
A “Students Against Facebook New Feed” group was set up by university student Ben Parr, now a well-known writer and expert on social media and internet technology. After it had garnered nearly 300,000 members in two days, Zuckerberg apologized on the Facebook blog.
“We really messed this one up,” he said. Conceding that “we didn’t build in the proper privacy controls,” Zuckerberg described the move as “a big mistake on our part.”
2007: Beacon
Beacon was a Facebook ad system that tracked what users did and what they purchased on partner websites, even for users who were not Facebook members. Adding to the privacy concerns, information about Facebook users’ purchases were published without their explicit consent on their friends’ news feeds.
The Facebook community mobilized as confusion reigned over whether Beacon was an opt-in or opt-out system and within a month Zuckerberg apologized.
“We’ve made a lot of mistakes building this feature, but we’ve made even more with how we’ve handled them,” he wrote.
Facebook shut down Beacon in 2009.
2009: Privacy settings
Facebook changed their privacy settings so that sharing information with everyone became the default setting and removed the news feed privacy controls put in place after their “big mistake” in 2006. They implemented a new process for choosing privacy settings but groups like the American Civil Liberties Union launched petitions and campaigns. Facebook quickly created a guide to privacy settings for their users.
Unsatisfied, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a formal complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over Facebook’s “unfair and deceptive business practices.” Canada’s privacy commissioner also launched an investigation.
The FTC complaint was settled in 2012, with Facebook agreeing to give users “clear and prominent notice” when their information is shared; obtain their express consent before doing so, when it isn’t covered by the privacy settings; maintain a privacy program; and have privacy audits every two years.
2010: More privacy problems
A glitch in February 2010 caused some private messages on Facebook to be sent to unintended recipients and that May a coding error opened Facebook chats, which are supposed to be private, to others.
Also in May, the European Union criticized Facebook’s privacy policy, saying that “opt out” was insufficient consent for advertising and “opt in” should be the standard.
That month, EPIC, along with other groups, filed another complaint with the FTC, while two Canadians scheduled a global “Quit Facebook” day.
A few weeks later, the Wall Street Journal revealed that Facebook and other social networking websites “have been sending data to advertising companies that could be used to find consumers’ names and other personal details, despite promises they don’t share such information without consent.”
Zuckerberg soon responded on the Facebook blog, announcing that they would make it easier to control privacy settings and give users more say over what information is made public.
2011: The anti-Google campaign
Facebook hired Burson-Marsteller, a public relations firm, to contact journalists and bloggers with accusations that Google was engaged in a “sweeping violation of user privacy.”
The problem, however, was that Facebook wanted it kept private that they were behind the anti-Google campaign. Once exposed, Facebook admitted that they should have behaved “in a serious and transparent way.”
2011: Facebook launches the timeline
Many users were concerned that this major revamp of their Facebook page was mandatory and that the timeline would unearth old material about them that was somewhat buried in the mountain of information on Facebook.
Users could decide who could see that information but not if it was on their friends’ Facebook pages.
2012: Facebook’s ‘like’ button
In 2010, Facebook introduced a new tool for users to share information about the things on the web that they liked. But, Facebook users who had clicked on the “like” button’ for some products began seeing their name and photo used to promote the product.
A class-action lawsuit was launched. Nick Begus became part of the class action after his friends saw his name being used to promote a 55-gallon barrel of personal lubricant he had “liked” as a joke. His sarcastic comment — “For Valentine’s Day. And everyday. For the rest of your life” — somehow became part of an ad for Amazon, where the barrel was for sale.
As part of the settlement, announced in June 2012, Facebook has to make it clear what the implications might be if they use the “like” button and has to give users the chance to decline to be unpaid endorsers of a product.
An economist testified that the new policy could cost Facebook $103 million in lost advertising revenue.
2012: Datalogix deal
It’s hard to say how much of a flap this one will be, since it’s just getting started.
Facebook has partnered with Datalogix, a company which tracks customers’ purchases when they use a discount loyalty card while shopping, in order to show advertisers whether their ads are working.
Privacy groups have expressed concerned about combining online data about ads with offline shopping data, and with how difficult it is for users to opt out. (A shortcut is this link to the Datalogix privacy page, where you can opt out.)
Facebook says, “individual user data is not shared between Facebook, Datalogix or advertisers.”
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
Most people will believe that it is fair that online networks should be more ethical in ensuring that our privacy is being looked after. But the question is, who’s fault should it be if we were the one posting things online and yet expect networking sites like Facebook to make sure it is not being spread around? If we do not want our posts to be all over Facebook, isn’t it obvious that we should not put it online?
Thus, the main point boils down to individual’s responsibility. We should be aware of what we want to put online, and not expect others to look after our own well being. There is no way Facebook is going to know whether we want this post to be spread around or to be kept secret. In the social networking world, there is almost no secret. Everything found online is assumed to be alright to show it to others. In addition, with Facebook’s overwhelming amount of users, how is it even possible for them to keep track of every individual’s needs?
Thus, it is conflicting to demand for online networks to be ethical in ensuring our privacy when we are the one putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world. Instead of saying that online networks are not being fair to us, why is it not the other way round whereby we are the one being unfair to them? Just like what Samantha has mentioned, online networks are firms which are profit driven. Why should they even care if our privacy is being intruded when we made it look as if we are not bothered about keeping our own little secret and information to ourselves?
However, if it is a case like our name being used to promote certain items just because we ‘liked’ a status, I find it rather unfair and ridiculous because such case if not due to our own decisions. As such, both online networks and individual should be responsible to ensure theirs own privacy is being protected. it is not a one way thing whereby we demand for something and yet not putting in the effort to do it.
2) I feel that it is not fair to expect online networks to take full responsibility in ensuring privacy. Part of the responsibility should rest with the users as well, who should be discerning when posting information online. However, the social networks should still give the users the option of filtering the information they post online to the different groups of people, and give the user authority over who can share their information. Giving users the option of restricting personal information to their circle of social network friends might also make it harder for online criminals to misuse their information. Yet at the same time, individuals should be mindful that the internet is not a completely safe place, and should be able to make informed choices on what kind of information is put up and also not just simply share what’s on your mind.
Koh Huey Chen 2SA4
2) I think that as a profit seeking company, the most recent tool to promote a friend’s post is ingenious. As it does not allow other users whom are not friends with the original user who posted the note to view it, it does to some extent protect the identity of him or her from being exposed to other strangers online. Hence, facebook has already done its part in ensuring the privacy of its users in the case of this new tool. The responsibility to hold our own information accountable are ourselves as we are indeed the ones that have chosen to release persomal information online for others to view. In light of this new service, it may also cause users to be more cautious and ethical in posting sensitive subjects on the wall that may defame oneself if the post becomes the center of attention among the others. Thus, all in all it is a service that condemns the irrational and radical while on the other hand promotes welfare causes or light reminder for a gathering with friends.
2) Yes, it is fair to be expected, and Facebook has delivered very well. Users are given absolute control over everything concerning their privacy: who sees what they share, who sees what others share about them, what they see from others, and most importantly, what users choose to share. It is, however, unfair to expect Facebook’s employees to personally do all of that for each user automatically, which is what people seem to be driving at when they complain about privacy issues.
I agree with Larry. I feel that it is fair that Facebook has given us users the ability to choose our own privacy settings as in this way, we are responsible for our own posts and words. Facebook should not be expected to completely take care of each users’ privacy as some people would be unhappy that Facebook is not giving them enough choice in the reach of their own post.
Yeo Jia Xin 2SA4
1. Back in 2006, Facebook introduced the News Feed, however, users were not given control of who could see their updates or opt out of the utilisation of the News Feed. This caused the creation of ” Students Against Facebook News Feed” by Ben Parr, who was a university student at that time, leading to Mark Zuckerberg’s apology. Secondly, in 2007, Facebook users’ purchases were made public by Beacon, which was Facebook’s ad system that tracked users’ activity and purchases on partner websites, even for the users who were not members of Facebook. This system was eventually shut down on 2009.
Quek Hock Cheong 2SA4
2) I feel it is fair to say that online networks should protect individual’s privacy, that they should establish clear boundaries where the sharing of information regarding individuals is concerned. Regarding the new feature, it wouldn’t hurt to make it necessary to accept the “promotion” before one’s own post is further publicized. Where ethics and morals are concerned, online social networking websites should thoroughly access the harms that can brought about through the addition of such features, and should always put their user’s security at an utmost priority over other aspects. Even though the internet is a dangerous place to upload any form of information, these online websites are the medium of choice for people around the world now. This being said, people upload information on these websites assuming that their privacy options would be kept to what they selected and not subjected to changes over time. Many people utilize online networks to keep in touch with family and friends, a high degree of trust is put into these online networking websites and thus they should be obliged to ensure individual’s privacy.
Ng Min Min, 2SB5
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
Yes, it is fair to expect online networks to be ethical in ensuring privacy because i believe in providing social safety net for people who does not want their own posts to spread around like wild fire. This includes what Larry has mentioned about the control that people have in deciding who are their audiences-friends,family,etc.
Once a post is made, it is hard to remove and take it down. It is ironic in such that just as we want attention from people, we want to keep our privacy as well. Nevertheless, i still believe that providing safety nets for privacy is better in terms of the individual’s choice and responsibility as well.
1) This is another example of a string of controversial privacy regulations Facebook has put in place. What are some of the other controversial regulations that have surfaced?
Recently, Facebook has taken down a new user-finding feature it quietly launched on mobile, known as Find Friends Nearby. This feature allows users to see other facebook users (regardless whether they are friend with each other or not) who are in close proximity. The purpose was to help users add new friends they just met during a function or at a venue. However, many users were worried as this feature could be easily abused : from a stalker who uses this feature to secretly follow another user to a criminal who uses this feature to locate and abduct a user for ransom. In addition to the privacy issue, Facebook was also threatened to a lawsuit as it was accused of copying the concept from Friendthem. To avoid further controversy, Facebook ‘quietly’ took the feature down.
After reading the post by Samuel, it goes to emphasize to us – active Facebook users, that where the internet is concerned, it is important to exercise caution and control what content we are to share online because of the vast audience and outreach that the internet has. However ‘safe’ the privacy options on websites are, there are always bound to be loopholes in these security measures that people with ill intents can easily gain access to our personal information. We must be wise when uploading content such as photos and especially locations online and check to see which share options are toggled and whether privacy settings are set by our preference. Ultimately, the onus is still on us when we make use of social networking sites and the powerful tool of the Internet.
Reply to Question 2:
Yes, I do agree with what Min Min has mentioned in her comment above, and I feel that while it is a valid point that putting our social lives on a social platform is a matter of personal choice and that the risk of having the ‘circle of privacy’ we long for is something everyone is aware of, I feel that online networks should not take the trust users have in their social lives made public to an exclusive group of friends and loved ones and make profits out of it (as mentioned in Yi Xiong’s article). People use social networks mainly to share their lives we people who, they want to do so, and by allowing such a function to be made available to users,privacy rights of users are at risk. Hence I feel that online networks should be ethical and maintain a basic level of respect and privacy of the user,to share their lives and thoughts with ONLy the people they want to.
Claire Chong 2SA4
2. I feel that it is fair to expect Facebook to be ethical in providing privacy to its users, as they should respect the privacy of their users to allow their users to share their thoughts only with friends and family. However, we should not expect their privacy settings to be completely effective and hence users should still exercise caution when uploading items for posting statuses on Facebook.
Janice Soh 2SA4
2.I agree with Claire on this matter and I feel that it is fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy. This is because since such networking sites motive is to increase membership, the must first gain the trust of the global population who will then contribute to their membership. Although Facebook has given their users the privilege to control our own privacy settings there is no doubt that we are still the ones responsible for our own posts and words. It is almost impossible for Facebook to monitor
approximately 1 billion users’ updates and posts to ensure that each users’ privacy is completely taken care of.
Q2) I feel that this idea of promoting posts is quite similar to that of other social media platforms like Twitter where you can retweet the tweets of others, and Tumblr, where you can reblog. Even though there may be privacy settings on twitter where you can make it privitised, tweets can still be shared by “copying and paste” for example. I think that this function makes the online world a more interconnected one, and encourages the importance of media responsibility among users like us. We determine and personalise our facebook page and we are the most critical moderator of all content posted on facebook. With about 1 billion users, facebook cannot be an all-seeing moderator, however there are still safety nets in place like the “Flag” function – where every other users can flag the post if they deem it to be offensive. These means that the online community can help keep a lookout for each other too!
) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
2. I feel that it is fair to expect online networks to ensure the privacy of the user. Clear boundaries have to be drawn to protect the rights and the personal information of the users; we entrust our valuable information to Social networking sites like Facebook and they have a certain degree of responsibility to protect and not abuse it to their advantage. However, the onus is mainly on the user themselves as they are the ones who have the ultimate control of their privacy online by their posts and personal information that they themselves contribute.
Jonathan 2SA4
1) This is another example of a string of controversial privacy regulations Facebook has put in place. What are some of the other controversial regulations that have surfaced?
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
Loo Jun Wen 2SA4
2) I believe it is fair for online networks like Facebook to keep to what they have listed in their privacy terms because it is precisely what they listed there that the users have trust in them by using it. If the Facebook goes against what they have promised in the privacy terms, then users would not trust it anymore and the number of users will definitely fall, affecting their popularity. Hence i believe Facebook will not be so foolish to do so.
But on the other hand, we should all know that there is a reason why the internet is a WorldWideWeb in which everyone or anyone, regardless of your privacy settings can have access to things you published online. Just like how a post by Amy Cheong on Facebook could be so widespread online in just a matter of days and the online post by NUS PRC scholar Sun Xu who posted that Singaporeans are “dogs” gained much attention and online “flamming” just overnight. Hence i believe that we should not feel that our post would be protected under the umbrella of the privacy terms because what we post online can never be private and it is up to our own responsibility to discern what we should or should not post online as online networks have no reason to protect us if we choose to post things which may cause public “flamming”.
Wong Pei Ying 2SB5
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
I feel that it is not fair to expect online networks to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy. There is no way to please all users. When the privacy setting is strict, some would complain that they are not able to post and share. When the privacy setting is slack, some would also complain that their personal information are not protected. I think online networks can only be responsible for ensuring privacy to a certain extent. The rest would be up to the users. If everyone think twice before they post, repost or share, it would make online networks safer.
1) This is another example of a string of controversial privacy regulations Facebook has put in place. What are some of the other controversial regulations that have surfaced?
Google’s controversial new privacy policy appears to violate European law, EU authorities said in an email to Google CEO Larry Page just two days before the new guidelines are set to come into force. CNIL, the French agency in charge of the investigation, said Google’s explanation of how it will use the data was too vague and difficult to understand ‘even for trained privacy professionals.’ The search giant said it intends to go ahead with the change anyway.
‘We have notified over 350 million authenticated Google users and provided highly visible notifications on our home page and in search results for our non-authenticated users,’ Google’s privacy chief Peter Fleischer wrote.
‘To pause now would cause a great deal of confusion for users.’ Google announced its new privacy policy with much fanfare – a ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy which will allow the search giant to share private data between its services so that, for instance, information harvested from Google searches can be used to target adverts within its Gmail service. The EU’s data protection authorities asked French regulator CNIL to investigate the new policy in January.
‘Our preliminary analysis shows that Google’s new policy does not meet the requirements of the European Directive on Data Protection,’ CNIL said in a letter to Google Chief Executive Larry Page, which was posted on CNIL’s website. The new policy makes it easier for Google to combine the data of one person using different services such as the search engine, YouTube or Gmail if he is logged into his Google account.
Facebook has become such a popular form on online media it seems as though people are rather open about sharing their lives with others. More and more people are joining Facebook every year and they know the implications Facebook bring, but some of the more private people are opting to toggle their privacy settings to achieve a certain sense of privacy on Facebook. However it is doubtful about the amount of privacy we can have on Facebook. Facebook is a company and all companies are profit-orientated and while it is unethical of Facebook to profit at our expanse, it is logical for them to do so. In fact, we should expect Facebook to exploit us for profits and by joining Facebook and “agreeing” to their terms and conditions we are putting ourselves at that risk. So what is there left for us to do? We can try to toggle privacy settings but the most important thing is to be careful of what you say and post in Facebook. Facebook may want to exploit us but that does not mean we should give them a chance to do so.
Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
2. I don’t think it is fair to expect online networks to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy. However, it is expected that online networks should deliver their terms and conditions. If we are to toggle privacy settings such that only friends can see, it should be required that online networks do so and nothing more. Still, being a profit-driven firm, online networks such as Facebook may not do so to ensure higher profits. Indeed, it is ironic that we ourselves allow private information online and expect a third party to secure the information for us. The very idea of privacy in a public domain is ironic, yet we expect online networks to give us that. I think the existent of online networks is to broadcast information, or they wouldn’t be on the internet where the transmission of information is at the click of one’s finger. Thus, we shouldn’t be expecting online networks to be ethical in ensuring privacy but the lest they should do is to follow their own terms and conditions.
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
I think its not fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy. In the first place, facebook is a firm with vested interests, profit is paramount to them. They are definitely not obliged to ensure each and every users’ privacy. Moreover, they have given the users’ the ability to adjust the privacy of their accounts, therefore, the responsibility is on the users to ensure that their account is safe from prying eyes. Online networks functions as a social platform for netizens, we, the users have to be conscious of what we post on such social networks as privacy controls is not entirely foolproof as of now.
Sean Lee 2SA4
Discussion Questions
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
It is rather ironic that we expect that online networking sites to ensure that our privacy is protected as we are the ones who are responsible for uploading those information online ourselves. Although there are privacy settings available, there are hackers around that could seive out our information once we posted it online. privacy settings alone can’t protect us, we have to protect ourselves by ensuring what we post online is not degrading to anyone and we also should not post important information online too lest it gets into the hands of others.
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
It is definitely fair for us to expect online social networking sites to respect its users’ privacy. Even though more of the responsibility lies on us to ensure that we do not put our personal information online carelessly, it does take two hands to clap, and the online networking sites themselves should continue to upgrade their systems regularly to maintain the privacy standards that users wish to have. I do agree that it is ironic, but only in the event where we callously broadcast surreptitious information on a online networking site and THEN blame them for their weak privacy system. Facebook is an example of a social networking site that does allow custom privacy modes, but even though they seem reliable, there are loopholes that exist which overlooks such privacy settings, and as such, we should never fully trust such privacy settings, but practice caution on our own as to the extent of information about ourselves we want to broadcast to the public.
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
Ironic it may be but any publisher must ensure he or she has the permission before publishing any private information. Terms and conditions must be abided by publishers before publishing . It is fair to demand what the terms say, however , we may not get what we also want. It is a problem when publishers the terms and conditions are not able to help . When foreign users or hackers hack into facebook, those terms and conditions will be powerless to help. Therefore , we should all just be careful about what we post as privacy can never be ensured.
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
What Facebook did was merely to give us the option of being able to broadcast posts and not any a change in policy that directly affects our privacy. It is definitely unfair for them to be held responsible for our privacy since it is the users who upload posts and updates that are able to be advertised. Thus the issue of security and privacy should ultimately lie under the responsibility of individuals who use Facebook. Whatever we post on Facebook or simply the Internet, must be accompanied with the fact in mind that it is now public and that no one can be put responsible for any of the detrimental effects that may occur but the individual himself.
Ernest Low 2SA4
2. The very fact that we patronize such social networking sites imply that we entrust them to keep our private information safe. However, that does not mean that every social networking site has a foolproof data system that keeps every single piece of information safe. Mishaps can happen, resulting in a leakage of sensitive information. Therefore, every netizen should exercise caution when posting such content online.
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
I do not think it is fair to expect online networks to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy. We are the ones who choose to put up information and images online. By doing so, we meant for everyone to see what we post because as tech-savvy individuals, we know the dangers of the internet and how vulnerable it is to be attacked by hackers. There is no way that users of social networks do not know that the issue of privacy is not 100% foolproof. Social networks such as Facebook are profit-driven and they would anything to increase their profits. They may claim to protect our privacy but we have no idea what they do with our information since they are ones with the upper hand and there is nothing we can do about it. The best way to protect yourselves is to only post information that you do not mind the whole world seeing. Always expect the worst to happen.
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
I feel that it is not fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical when it comes to ensuring privacy. After all, these online networks like Facebook are firms and are therefore, profit driven with the welfare of consumers being last on their list of concern. It is our responsibility to ensure our privacy. Since it is our personal choice to sign up on these online networks, we should be prepared that our information is shared with the world. Hence, we need to exercise discretion when we place information onto the web and not only on online networks where the supposed privacy settings are to keep the information private. For example, the recent case of Amy Cheong who ranted online about Malay weddings. Her Facebook profile was private and yet her racist comment was leaked. As such, this shows that nothing is safe when posted online and therefore, we need to be responsible for our own privacy.
Hazel Lim Si Min 2SB5
2.
I do not find it fair that Facebook, a social networking site, is expected to be ethical in ensuring the privacy of its users’ information especially since the broadcasting of information is done by the users themselves. The main reason why netizens use Facebook is to publish their photos, gather support for various causes or events they participate in and more importantly, update their friends on the “juicy bits” in their lives. Although there have always been privacy settings when it comes to ensuring that only a user’s “friends” are allowed to view one’s profile, it is not uncommon for one’s “friends” to comprise of people one has hardly or never even met before. Information protection and privacy has already been compromised long before the addition of this new feature- promoting a friend’s status.
Facebook ultimately is a company with the main objectives of maximizing profits and boosting its popularity. Earning money from the promotion of friends’ statuses certainly meets the objective of maximizing profits, however, it is not entirely at the expense of the users. This is simply because the users, also the consumers of Facebook’s new feature, are able to make the choice to pay for this service. Also, whether or not the user finds it appropriate or a privacy violation to promote his friend’s status or not is entirely up to him. Therefore, if a user is adamant in ensuring his own privacy, the best thing to do is just to think twice before clicking the “post” button, and before even deciding to broadcast anything personal or embarrassing.
Amanda Chua 2SB5
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
Yes, it is fair. While individuals do hold some responsibility over their own privacy, I believe that these social networking sites also have a part to play.
Individuals should be responsible for the information they post online. If a person wants to keep his or her personal information confidential, there are many privacy settings that can be used to ensure this. However, I do not think this is the most important aspect of the issue. Many networking sites, Facebook included, make use of tracking cookies to gather information about their users. Information on web activity is then sold to advertising companies, who then use the information to decide the type of advertisements to run on your Facebook page. While I don’t think that Facebook has any responsibility to keep posts private (since these posts are put up by users, and are meant to be seen by many), I think it has a responsibility to keep other user information confidential, unless sharing of said information is authorized by the user.
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
I feel that this is fair as being users of such sites, we are responsible for what we post and what we reveal to our friends. We must be prepared for it to be stolen or else we should not post it at all. In fact posting anything on the internet has it’s risk. We all know the existence of hackers. Even reputable websites with high security such as US government websites get stolen. How can one expect these social media sites to protect us better than them. To put it simply, everything has it’s risk and it is up to us as individual to assess it and do the best course of action.
Benjamin Goh 2SA4
Q2.
I do not believe that it is fair for us users, to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy. It is a known fact that nothing is private on the internet. Sure, there are privacy setting that you can use to your advantage, but whatever you post will remain in the depths of the world wide web forever, thanks to google. They have cached everything and stored it for everyone’s access. Therefore, because we are responsible for whatever we post online, we shouldn’t be blaming online networks like Facebook for not being ethical.
Marissa Ho 2SB5
A further privacy controversy to hit Facebook was the discreet introduction of technology from the company that automatically identifies people in photographs on the website.
After uploading photos users would be greeted with the “Tag Suggestions” system, which adopts facial recognition software in order to identify individuals in the photos. It encouraged their friends to tag them so that others can easily access the images, even without the agreement of the individual who has been “tagged”.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8941102/Facebook-controversies.html)
Q2.I think that it is not fair for online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy; as such networks are profit driven. Being just like any other businesses, their main priority would be to increase their profits so as to make more revenue. Therefore, it can be understood that the company would compromise on its users privacy in order to make more money. This could be shown in the new function of Facebook “promote and share “whereby a fee of $7 is charged upon its users per use.
Timothy Straughan 2SA4
2.
It is indeed ironic how we put so much personal information online and then get angry when the sites which we have entrusted so much of our information with, decide on a new feature that would make our information a bit less ‘private’.
We are the ones who choose to put our information online. Therefore, it isn’t fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy. The networks have to do what is best for themselves. They have to ensure that they do what they need to do to survive and grow. After all, online networks like Facebook aren’t around just to serve us and help us make ‘friends’. No, such networks are after profit. Therefore, we cannot expect them to always conform to what we want.
Furthermore, if we as users of the networks are unhappy with what the networks are doing, we should simply stop using them. It is not difficult to deactivate a Facebook account, even if its just temporary. We certainly don’t need a Facebook page anyway. We wouldn’t die if we stop using Facebook. Therefore, we should treat Facebook and similar networks as treats rather than necessities. If we agree with what the networks do, then fine, we can use them happily. However, we shouldn’t expect anything of them. Once we stop agreeing with what they do, we should simply stop using them.
In any case, when we put personal information online, we are already taking a risk. Can we ever expect our personal information to be completely ‘private’?
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
There is a myriad of reasons for which people want to use social media. Some use it exclusively as a means of keeping in contact with friends and relatives while some use it for establishing a public online presence and yet others use it for business opportunities. Each of these purposes entail different levels of privacy and functionality. Facebook benefits from catering to these needs as they expand its user base. Facebook can remain fair by issuing standard privacy settings to all users, informing them of the extent of their protection. From here facebook users can customise their own settings to suit their own needs. This would require facebook to provide a range of privacy options ranging from virtual hermit to celebrity. Whether one chooses to use this website for the sake of broadcasting oneself is purely individual choice
Tiffany Soh 2AA1
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
I believe that to a certain extent, it is fair to expect online networks to be ethical in ensuring the privacy of their users. When the users register or sign up for an account with an online network, the networks would typically state that the personal particulars of the users will not be shared with others unless approved so by the users themselves. Hence, it is certainly the responsibility of the online networks to uphold the trust that the users have placed in them by ensuring the privacy of their users.
On the other hand, the users themselves also bear responsibility in ensuring their own privacy. It has been reiterated countless times in schools and the media that anything that is posted on the Internet is never truly private as it can always be uncovered in one way or another, and that even though something may be seemingly successfully deleted, it can always somehow be recovered. Thus, users should be careful of ensuring their privacy when putting their information online.
2) In my opinion, it is not fair to expect online networks to be ethical. Facebook, and other similar online networks, is merely an online social platform that allows us to update our friends and acquaintances about our daily lived. There is hence no requirement for it to pertain to what our society considers to be right or wrong. Every user has a choice of what he or she wants to put up online. Once a person decides to upload a picture or update his of her status, that person has chosen to make public that particular information. Therefore, it is not the fault if Facebook if it simply allows other users to further publicize that ‘story’ which the owner uploaded himself. If we are afraid that certain private information will be shared throughout the World Wide Web, we should not even post them on our Facebook walls in the first place. In order to avoid meeting with such circumstances, Facebook users should practice using such online media platforms responsibly as well as learn how to protect one’s privacy.
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
I do not think it is fair to expect online networks to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy. I believe that people should be responsible for that information they divulge online to the public. Whatever people post online is put up out of their own free will, hence they should be prepared to deal with any consequences that result from their actions. People already know that anything released online can spread very easily, so they shouldn’t be surprised if something they posted online becomes ‘viral’. Furthermore, many social networks such as Facebook, have different privacy settings, where one can choose who can and cannot see certain information one posts online. Thus, if one wants to post something online, but ensure that it does not become ‘viral’, then one should only make that information available to people who can be trusted not to spread it.
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
In my opinion, I feel that online networks should be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy. However, the individual is soverign and should not expect others to intepret what infomation
he or she wants to be kept private while others public. Should the individual be responsible for
his own act, there would be no argument that online networks need to ensure privacy so that
the user will not be put at disadvantage. It would be beneficial for the user, if online social networks could warn the user on how to keep his or her infomation private or by suggesting to uphold privacy for every message the individual sends out into cyberspace.
Asher Mau 2SB5
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
I think it is fair to expect online networks to be ethical in ensuring privacy – as long as these expectations fall within reasonable expectations of online networks. For example, it is not fair to expect Facebook to screen through everything that is posted, but it is fair to expect Facebook not to release private information to third parties without prior express consent from the user.
The individual controls the information he or she releases, and hence can be rightly thought of as responsible for his or her actions. It is not right, however, for the individual to have his or her information released due to unethical actions by an online network. Furthermore, most online networks will ask for some degree of private information during the registration process – again, it is only fair that we expect such networks to ensure that this information is not released without consent.
2) Is it fair to expect online networks such as Facebook to be ethical in terms of ensuring privacy? Isn’t this rather ironic since we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world?
Facebook being a massive communication platform does at least provide basic privacy control where one could set who they would like to reveal their information to. However, this doesn’t entirely stop others from spreading the posts, be it insults, rumors or even charity runs to other renown pages or organization that exists within Facebook while doing all this under another account. All in all, it comes down to individual responsibility and dignity rather than Facebook being responsible for the cause of spreading such posts. Therefore, despite how ethical Facebook is which ensuring the privacy of others, the ones that are actually the cause of such ruckus is none other than ourselves. It is indeed very ironic that we are the culprits of such uproars but blame organizations, pages, people and what not for it. We make ourselves vulnerable to such defame.
However, Facebook should not make use of this opportunity to act as a profit-driven organization. If what they say or the intend for this extra feature is true, then the least they could do to earn such a large sum of $7 (before revamp) per post is to vet through each and every posts or submission and depending on its authenticity, acknowledgement and extent of disclosure, they can highlight these posts to friends of the customer or even to the entire Facebook population.
1)
Facebook had a feature that automatically creates a “couple” page for people that changed their relationship status to “married to” or “in a relationship with” another person. This outraged many couples as they felt like their “privacy” had been intruded, with their love life being consolidated and broadcast to the world with a whole web page dedicated to all the online interaction the couples had with each other on Facebook.
2)
I think that it is fair to expect online networks to be ethical of ensuring privacy, because unlike how most of the others here think otherwise, I don’t think they know that online networks like Facebook actually sells their information with “permission” to generate revenue for themselves. Eventhough users may post frivolous information, like photos, location and senseless status updates, on online networks that other people can stalk(which is what most people here are talking about in “ironic that we share these information”), what’s important to note is that it’s the sites that request for our vital information, such as handphone numbers, country, city, age, gender, email address, etc. They also track our preferences from the sites we go to and after collecting all these information, they sell it to commercial companies that plasters our facebook and emails (maybe even phones) with targeted advertisements that are similar to our personal preference, in our vicinity, within our age and gender group. They are breaching our privacy by selling our private information for profits. Although it may seem ironic that we are the ones who are putting our information online and broadcasting ourselves to the world, not everyone wants their personal information to be sold like a commodity like other companies own us. Eventhough Facebook may give us the privacy “option” to prevent others from seeing our personal information, where is the .privacy if they are selling the information to companies that are not to our knowledge? Not to mention about how Facebook stores data about their users and the case where a Facebook user requested to get all the information that the site has stored on him only to receive thousands of pages worth of information with even more that Facebook might have deliberately hidden. http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/facebook-stores-up-to-800-pages-of-personal-data-per-user-account-20110928/
All in all, my view is that the main point of social networks is to act as a platform to share information that we want to share with who we want to share with, with our permission and not having our information stored and sold without our knowledge and permission. It is only fair that we know what Facebook is doing with our information and be ethical about it because they do not own our information, they cannot sell it like they own it.