I'm going to say this right up front: I'm not a fan of Facebook. In fact, I've turned down offers to interview with them before, because I am not a fan of the platform, how it is used by people, and how it monetizes the resulting breadcrumb trail from that use. As you might guess, I don't have a Facebook account. I was deleting my Facebook account before that was a cool thing to do (2015).
I also hold no great respect for Mark Zuckerberg, and do not hold him in high regard as some form of business or technological oracle. The fact that someone makes, in many cases, an obscene and arguably unjustified amount of money because they happened to make something that they put up on the web doesn't make them geniuses. It just makes them lucky.
Today, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was the, let's say, distinguished guest of the US Senate. He spent 5 hours answering questions about Facebook's collection, protection, and ultimately, dissemination of users' private data. For the most part, it was your basic Senate hearing: a CEO saying essentially nothing, while Senators speak to the cameras. But a few things caught my ear, and frankly, irked me.
It got a good laugh in the hearing room, but the point that Sen. Durbin makes is a good one. Mark doesn't want you to know where he stays, who he speaks to, what he's doing. But he wants you to tell him all of those things. And he wants you to tell him those things so that he can use that information to sell you things via targeted advertising.
This is not novel. Google is the best targeted advertiser on the web (they practically invented the idea). The difference is two-fold, at least in appearance. First is the way in which 3rd parties are allowed to access user data. For Facebook, it appears to be much more willy-nilly, the Big Data Wild West. Google seems to be a bit more selective in how data interactions work. However, it could also be that this is really a symptom of the second difference - scale. Google has a lot of users, but Facebook is - to many people (especially in the developing world) - the WWW/Internet itself. For a great many of Facebook's 2.2 BILLION monthly users, Facebook is the means and the end. It is all there is on the Internet. They receive all of their information via Facebook - their news, their recommendations, their family updates, everything. And this means that, in social media terms, there is no other option. There is only Facebook.
Sen. Graham touched on this when he asked Mark if Facebook is a monopoly:
For all intents and purposes, it is a monopoly. It's why Facebook was the platform that was targeted. It's why the stock market values a social media platform at over 477 BILLION dollars as I write this. Think about that. Investors think that a social media platform - which was developed to share thoughts among college students - at nearly HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. There is no logical reason it should be worth that much, except for the fact that it has created a monopoly in terms of the way people interact on the Internet.
Mark is a hypocrite. He wants privacy for himself and his family, but has built a ridiculously overvalued company on the presumption that no one else deserves the same. He said today on the Hill that people agreed to it in the license agreement. So, no issues on Facebook's part.
What a crock. Don't hide behind the completely incomprehensible legalize that uses more words to cover Facebook's backside than the US Constitution needs to literally form a continental-scale government. Thankfully, Sen. Kennedy said what needed to be said:
But, Facebook needs that incomprehensible user agreement. They need people to blindly agree to be tracked in what they read, what they like, what they comment on, and who they have private conversations with. This type of data is invaluable. It tells advertisers what a person is likely to buy. It seems that it also tells unfriendly state actors what loads of bull people are willing to buy, as well. And that is the sad part. Facebook is the snake-oil of the modern world - sold to people as a vehicle for open discourse and democracy, but in reality a toxic potion which poisons discourse, depresses users, and undermines the most important component of the free society: an agreement on an understanding of the reality of the world in which we exist.
And for this potion, Facebook and Mark are profitable. But I would never call them professional. Professionals aren't hypocrites. Professionals value their users' rights as much as their own. In fact, a professional programmer should be the first and primary user of any software they create. If you look through Mark's Facebook posts, I'm sure you will realize that he doesn't use Facebook at all - his handlers and lawyers do in his name. And, most importantly, a professional considers the ethical ramifications of a business decision before making it.
As always, feel free to comment, subscribe, or connect on those other platforms: Twitter and LinkedIn.
I also hold no great respect for Mark Zuckerberg, and do not hold him in high regard as some form of business or technological oracle. The fact that someone makes, in many cases, an obscene and arguably unjustified amount of money because they happened to make something that they put up on the web doesn't make them geniuses. It just makes them lucky.
Today, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was the, let's say, distinguished guest of the US Senate. He spent 5 hours answering questions about Facebook's collection, protection, and ultimately, dissemination of users' private data. For the most part, it was your basic Senate hearing: a CEO saying essentially nothing, while Senators speak to the cameras. But a few things caught my ear, and frankly, irked me.
Watch as Sen. Durbin makes a point about the right to privacy when Zuckerberg declines to reveal his Washington D.C. hotel and who he messaged last night. https://t.co/9rPFRyvzPn pic.twitter.com/198cwwiXjj
— MSNBC (@MSNBC) April 10, 2018
It got a good laugh in the hearing room, but the point that Sen. Durbin makes is a good one. Mark doesn't want you to know where he stays, who he speaks to, what he's doing. But he wants you to tell him all of those things. And he wants you to tell him those things so that he can use that information to sell you things via targeted advertising.
This is not novel. Google is the best targeted advertiser on the web (they practically invented the idea). The difference is two-fold, at least in appearance. First is the way in which 3rd parties are allowed to access user data. For Facebook, it appears to be much more willy-nilly, the Big Data Wild West. Google seems to be a bit more selective in how data interactions work. However, it could also be that this is really a symptom of the second difference - scale. Google has a lot of users, but Facebook is - to many people (especially in the developing world) - the WWW/Internet itself. For a great many of Facebook's 2.2 BILLION monthly users, Facebook is the means and the end. It is all there is on the Internet. They receive all of their information via Facebook - their news, their recommendations, their family updates, everything. And this means that, in social media terms, there is no other option. There is only Facebook.
Sen. Graham touched on this when he asked Mark if Facebook is a monopoly:
Watch Mark Zuckerberg and Sen. Graham go back-and-forth about whether Facebook has a monopoly #tictocnews pic.twitter.com/bQvzfUTkTo
— TicToc by Bloomberg (@tictoc) April 10, 2018
For all intents and purposes, it is a monopoly. It's why Facebook was the platform that was targeted. It's why the stock market values a social media platform at over 477 BILLION dollars as I write this. Think about that. Investors think that a social media platform - which was developed to share thoughts among college students - at nearly HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS. There is no logical reason it should be worth that much, except for the fact that it has created a monopoly in terms of the way people interact on the Internet.
Now for What I Think
Mark is a hypocrite. He wants privacy for himself and his family, but has built a ridiculously overvalued company on the presumption that no one else deserves the same. He said today on the Hill that people agreed to it in the license agreement. So, no issues on Facebook's part.
Zuckerberg says 'we made it very clear' that Facebook users could have their data harvested, so it didn't break an FTC agreement https://t.co/YFBCbMF43U pic.twitter.com/xNocroLrl0
— Business Insider (@businessinsider) April 10, 2018
What a crock. Don't hide behind the completely incomprehensible legalize that uses more words to cover Facebook's backside than the US Constitution needs to literally form a continental-scale government. Thankfully, Sen. Kennedy said what needed to be said:
Mark Zuckerberg's Congressional testimony still has some spark, even at 4 hours in. Said Senator Kennedy: "The purpose of Facebook's user agreement is to protect Facebook's rear end. It's not to inform users about their rights." https://t.co/I333s2Xi30 pic.twitter.com/qauRj817hZ
— WIRED (@WIRED) April 10, 2018
But, Facebook needs that incomprehensible user agreement. They need people to blindly agree to be tracked in what they read, what they like, what they comment on, and who they have private conversations with. This type of data is invaluable. It tells advertisers what a person is likely to buy. It seems that it also tells unfriendly state actors what loads of bull people are willing to buy, as well. And that is the sad part. Facebook is the snake-oil of the modern world - sold to people as a vehicle for open discourse and democracy, but in reality a toxic potion which poisons discourse, depresses users, and undermines the most important component of the free society: an agreement on an understanding of the reality of the world in which we exist.
And for this potion, Facebook and Mark are profitable. But I would never call them professional. Professionals aren't hypocrites. Professionals value their users' rights as much as their own. In fact, a professional programmer should be the first and primary user of any software they create. If you look through Mark's Facebook posts, I'm sure you will realize that he doesn't use Facebook at all - his handlers and lawyers do in his name. And, most importantly, a professional considers the ethical ramifications of a business decision before making it.
As always, feel free to comment, subscribe, or connect on those other platforms: Twitter and LinkedIn.