For my final blog post I wanted to highlight that it is more
than possible to publically and democratically manage social media companies
such as Facebook. Recently a series of articles by Bensch, Essers, and The Guardian concerning legal regulation
of Facebook in Germany have come to my attention. These legal rulings are
produced by Germany’s public government and many of the outcomes are in favour
of user’s personal rights. The Bensch article deals with the policing of a
website that was affiliated with Facebook which was transmitting user data to
Facebook without the expressed consent of users. The Essers article covers a
court ruling in favour of the user concerning agency over user data. This
ruling essentially barred Facebook from utilizing user data without permission
and aimed to shift power over the control of user data to the users themselves.
It is important to note, however, that actually having a
public debate does not automatically solve every social problem inherent in current
social media issues. Even though these issues can be discussed and debated
publically there is still a power discrepancy (in favour of Facebook I would
assume). An article by The Guardian
covering a German court ruling which affirms Facebook’s right to force users to
use their real names is exemplary of this. These ruling supported Facebook’s
practices of reserving the right to demand photo-identification from users as
well as the company’s ability to unilaterally update user profiles with their
real name. Facebook cites protecting user’s security as the primary reason for
these practices. While I do not want to get into it here (due to limited
scope), as authors such as Gelh or Fuchs might point out, it seems more likely
that Facebook is insistent on these practices due to the added value that a
confirmed identity can bring to the affective labour that its users conduct.
Regardless perhaps these examples might provide a solid
precedence for democratically challenging and regulating social media practices
throughout the world. It is important to note that this must be democratic
regulation that we shift to (which we are lacking) as there is already ample
regulation of these industries by capital to ensure that the do not unfairly conflict
with one another’s organizations. We have discussed this before but I would
like to again highlight that it is possible for individual countries to
regulate social media spaces as at least some of the physical infrastructure
that these spaces rely on must reside in their host country providing a very
basic and powerful form of control to the citizens of that country.
The potential of moving forward with democratic regulation
of social media presents several interesting questions. For example: would it
be possible to suggest regulating social media in North America at this point
in time due to existing neo-liberal hegemonic viewpoints? Would we need to do
something else prior to suggesting regulation changes in favour of users (e.g.
such as educating people about the exploitation inherent in social media)? Are
there any existing social movements or organizations that might support
democratic regulation of Facebook? However we decide to proceed, let us do our
best to make sure that we are shaping the entire industry in our best
interests.
Works Cited
- Bensch, Fabrizio. “German Court Rules Against Use of Facebook ‘Like’ Button.” Reuters 24 February 2016. Accessed 19 March 2016 <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-like-germany-idUSKCN0WB1OI>.
- Essers, Leok. “Facebook Loses German Privacy Lawsuit Over Friend Finder, Personal Data. PCWorld 7 March 2012. Accessed 19 March 2016 <http://www.pcworld.com/article/251430/facebook_loses_german_privacy_lawsuit_over_friend_finder_personal_data.html>.
- N.A.. “German Court Rules Facebook May Prevent Its Users From Fake Names.” The Guardian 3 March 2016. Accessed 19 March 2016 <http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/03/facebook-pseudonym-case-german-court-privacy>.
Interesting post, Santiago!
ReplyDeleteFor Fuchs, an alternative to our current realm of social media exploitation is possible... but not in a capitalist system. He argues in the final chapter of his book that in order to have a commons-based Internet where everyone has equal access and all participants are equal beneficiaries, we would have to move to a classless society. As Mark Fisher puts it in Capitalist Realism, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, and in thinking through some of Fuchs' final chapters, I found this to be increasingly true for me.
Fuchs does provide some starting points in thinking through the shift to a commons-based Internet, including better data protection laws, opt-in advertising rather than our dominant opt-out model, corporate watch platforms, and alternative internet platforms which are more democratic in practice, like Wikipedia or Diaspora*. Most difficultly, though, the shift to a fully commons-based Internet would require, in Fuchs' mind, a shift to a fully commons-based society as well; a global participatory democracy.
Interesting post, Santiago!
ReplyDeleteFor Fuchs, an alternative to our current realm of social media exploitation is possible... but not in a capitalist system. He argues in the final chapter of his book that in order to have a commons-based Internet where everyone has equal access and all participants are equal beneficiaries, we would have to move to a classless society. As Mark Fisher puts it in Capitalist Realism, it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, and in thinking through some of Fuchs' final chapters, I found this to be increasingly true for me.
Fuchs does provide some starting points in thinking through the shift to a commons-based Internet, including better data protection laws, opt-in advertising rather than our dominant opt-out model, corporate watch platforms, and alternative internet platforms which are more democratic in practice, like Wikipedia or Diaspora*. Most difficultly, though, the shift to a fully commons-based Internet would require, in Fuchs' mind, a shift to a fully commons-based society as well; a global participatory democracy.