What are the differences between journalistic and social media coverage? In their blog posts, students Ville Vehmanen, Franseska Lahdenranta, Hanna Nieminen, Milja Sorvari, and Fatma Sena Kale look at ethical challenges related to questionable or offensive social media content, biased reporting, and how social media and online news differed in their coverage of Black Friday. The blog posts have been produced as a part of the course Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States at the University of Turku.

Miten journalistisen ja sosiaalisen median uutisointi eroavat toisistaan? Blogikirjoituksissaan opiskelijat Ville Vehmanen, Franseska Lahdenranta, Hanna Nieminen, Milja Sorvari ja Fatma Sena Kale pohtivat eettisiä haasteita liittyen kyseenalaiseen, loukkaavaan tai puolueelliseen sosiaalisen median sisältöön ja tarkastelevat, kuinka sosiaalisen median ja verkkouutisten tavat uutisoida Black Fridaysta erosivat toisistaan. Blogikirjoitukset on tehty osana Turun yliopiston Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States –kurssia.

Ville Vehmanen

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

As our understanding of the looming ecological crisis has increased, consumption has become, at least ideologically, more and more problematic. Before and during Black Friday in 2019, in addition to all the advertising, opposing opinions were also heard. Moreover, there were an increasing number of retailers who chose to close their shops, donate to charity, or simply encourage their customers to refrain from superfluous spending. But where does journalism stand in all of this? What did newspapers write? And could social media, such as Twitter really expose how people think and behave?

For the sake of framing, I decided to concentrate on The New York Times and Twitter. I did a search on the New York Times website to see what they wrote this year about Black Friday and searched Twitter for tweets with the hashtag #BlackFriday and more than 1000 likes. This allowed me to focus on the tweets that had gotten most recognition. My hypothesis? I would imagine that traditional media, like The New York Times, would embrace the ethos of consumption and that the anti-movements would operate on social media. Let’s see what I discovered!

Surprisingly, the articles on The New York Times were mostly critical towards the holiday and at best, or worst, offered readers advice on how to avoid bad products and deals. The newspaper ran a traditional “What You Need to Know” type of article that offered the readers an overview of the top items for sale and how much people are spending, but also questioned the consumerist approach to the post-Thanksgiving period. In the tech section, Brian X. Chen wrote about the worst tech gifts he had received and gave his dos and don’ts of tech shopping. It would be fair to say this article had an environmental undertone to it since buying less but better is always better for the environment as well. Probably the most positive article towards shopping was Tammy La Gorce’s piece on buying a wedding dress, utilizing Black Friday deals. In it, she went through various bridal clothing retailers to get a sense of what was available.

In addition to these hands-on articles, the New York Times did publish a couple of interesting stories that dealt with the hidden side of Black Friday. First of all, they wrote about the unsung heroes of this massive retail effort; the stockroom worker, the social media influencer, the luggage salesman, and the industrious robot. Vanessa Friedman, fashion director of The Times, questioned the meaning of Black Friday in her column “What Does ‘Black Friday’ Even Mean Anymore?” Black Friday has extended from a one-day event to nearly a month of offers, and Friedman called for a change. She argued that the shared excitement that used to be the core of Black Friday has been lost in the digitized world.

What about social media? How did the Twittersphere react to last year’s Black Friday? The popular tweets can be categorized into three groups: promotion, memes, and awareness. Many celebrities, like Khloe Kardashian, Jeffree Star, and Elizabeth Hurley, took to Twitter to promote their goods and Black Friday deals. As always, social media thrives on humor, so various memes went viral over the holidays, such as the comedian Trevor Noah’s video of a man running on a treadmill with a shopping cart, training from Black Friday madness.  The top tweet, which falls under this category, was from none other than God:

In the end, the criticism towards Black Friday and the raising of awareness that I expected were there, but not to the extent I imagined. The English actress Amanda Abbington simply tweeted, “You don’t need anything” and Muireann O’Connell, the Irish tv show host, tweeted as follows:

But to be honest, on a larger scale, criticism towards mass consumption or Black Friday was simply not found on Twitter. So, I was wrong with my hypothesis. What could explain this? First of all, I might myself live in a social media filter bubble where people I follow are against superfluous consumption. Secondly, Black Friday is much larger in the United States than in Finland and its historical roots and its importance can be difficult to understand from our perspective. Thirdly, Twitter, as most social media platforms, is American, and thus the consensus on consumerism and the importance of Black Friday differs from how we see it in Scandinavia. Finally, I simply did a search with one hashtag and focused on the most liked posts, so this really doesn’t give you a realistic understanding of the general conversation. Yet, it was fun and at least I tried to shed some light on this crazy business!

Franseska Lahdenranta

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

In 2017, a group of kids who got accepted to Harvard formed a group chat for sending memes. And then another chat for sending offensive memes. And then one more, for really offensive memes.

This was covered in NPR’s podcast “Hidden Brain” where the host Shankar Vedantam explores topics relating to psychology and human behavior. He interviewed one of the students, “William,” and uncovered his story in a slow, detailed, and dramatized way that seemed to focus on defending the kids’ need to bond over graphic images and racial slurs. The group chats were formed in order for the students to get to know each other and bond. Supposedly, the more offensive the meme, the more popular the sender. Would you give in to peer pressure like that? What would you think were the consequences, if there should be any?

Forbes describes the incident in their article published on June 5th, 2017: “The Holocaust, child abuse, sexual assault, as well as posts that denigrated minority groups, were all fair game in the meme-focused private group chat at one point called ‘Harvard Memes For Horny Bourgeois Teens.’” The shared content led to Harvard deciding to rescind admissions to 10 students, including “William.” After students are accepted to the prestigious university, Harvard still reserves the right to cancel admission if the students’ moral character or honesty is called into question.  Of course, the matter has been debated, with some people defending the students’ right to discuss whatever topic they choose based on the right to free speech and freedom of expression provided by the First Amendment of the U.S Bill of Rights. Others consider expelling students or not admitting them to prestigious schools to be the right thing to do in a case like this.

Looking at this case in the light of ethics on social media, I think an important aspect relating to these problems with memes is acknowledging one’s privilege when handling sensitive topics or matters that are unfamiliar. Students who are admitted to Harvard are privileged and should respect their status, accomplishments, and other people enough to realize what kind of material it is acceptable to share. People need to realize their privilege and take responsibility for the actions that they take, whether in social media, traditional legacy media, or face-to-face interactions with other people. One tool for this is to educate people on media literacy, diversity in media, and on how to take action when offensive or problematic material is shared on social media.

Sources:

“Online Behavior, Real-Life Consequences: The Unfolding of a Social Media Scandal,” NPR, September 9, 2019: https://www.npr.org/2019/09/06/758281834/you-cant-hit-unsend-how-a-social-media-scandal-unfolded-at-harvard?t=1579814938189

“Harvard Rescinds Admissions to 10 Students for Offensive Facebook Memes,” Forbes, June 5, 2017: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccaheilweil1/2017/06/05/harvard-rescinds-10-admissions-offer-for-offensive-facebook-memes-ollowing-commencement-speaker-zuckerberg/#554a44e03dbd

Hanna Nieminen

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

For many, social media has become a crucial form of connecting with others and communicating about one’s life and worldviews. It is a medium through which we interact, but in this process the channel itself and the meanings users attach to it become a resource. Online comments, statistics, and trends are increasingly incorporated into news stories and articles, but journalists are still expected to adhere to traditional codes of ethics, such as transparency and respect. Sometimes, however, the lines of journalistic ethics are overstepped so blatantly that it becomes unclear if the fault is in the writer, the publisher, or the online environment itself.

One example of an ethics violation is an article published by the American news site Daily Beast in August 2016, in which the writer, who is straight, created a Grindr profile to uncover gay athletes in the Rio de Janeiro Olympic village. The article received immediate backlash, prompting the site to first edit out identifying information and eventually take down the entire article and replace it with a formal apology. The original writer, who did not disclose his role as a journalist to the Grindr users and allegedly used homophobic language in the article, disappeared from the Daily Beast site and his personal social media for seven months before returning to his career publicly.

The Daily Beast case is only a tip of the iceberg of questionable social media journalism and as such is clearly distinguishable as unethical, but unraveling the incident only creates a bundle of new questions. Did the writer not realize that his methods went against several sections of the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) Code of Ethics? How did the article pass through the editing process? Why was the publisher’s response to the critique gradual? These questions arise specifically as a reaction to this case, but we could also reflect on the broader theme of this issue: how aware are journalists and the audience of the ethical use of social media as a source, and does the normalization of social media make people numb to its potential violations?

Obvious ethics violations can, in some cases, serve as shock therapy, but incidents of questionable journalism do not always stand out to this degree. As social media has become an everyday tool, it is increasingly easy to forget old lessons of internet safety, of how what you post will be online forever, viewed by whoever, and used for whatever purposes. It can be easy to find peace of mind in the idea of anonymity among the masses. However, our online presence is not meaningless; it is the content. On the other hand, focusing on the online world as the reason for questionable journalism runs the risk of victim blaming. Social media users who engage in their chosen platforms, private or public, under the assumption that they are in a “safe space” where other users are adhering to the rules and norms, should not be blamed for getting caught in an undisclosed social experiment. Journalists who are facing the abundance of resources in social media are under more pressure than ever to consider the globally and universally ethical dimensions of their work.

I believe that in the case of the Daily Beast, the article was a product of multilayered social and ethical blindness to social media as both a source as well as an audience. Social media users have become an inherent part of the cycle of content creation, and to maintain a trust for ethical journalism in social media, both sides should stay informed and critical of what this interactive relationship entails.

Sources:

BBC. 2016. “Rio 2016: Daily Beast ‘sorry for outing gay athletes’”. Accessed December 6, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-37058787.

Milja Sorvari

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

All media play a significant role in today’s political playing field in the U.S. The news, broadcasters, and everyone on social media are part of the system that keeps the political discussion ongoing. While social media has enabled more direct communication amongst people and politicians, it is important to remember the role of journalism. The American Press Institute (2019b) describes the purpose of journalism as informing people of events and issues in the world. Compared to individuals creating content on social media, journalists are more bound by the general rules and ethical guidelines of the professional field. Whether someone believes that these are effective is another question.

Either way, following guidelines and ethical journalism does not guarantee unbiased, non-ideological content. Being able to critically examine the information received from any source is important in understanding whether and how the writer meant to affect you. As the American Press Institute (2019a) also points out, the primary value of journalism is, in fact, the utility to empower. The assumption of that empowerment withholds the thought that the information will eventually affect a reader’s decision. This is a particularly important aspect when considering the news coverage on politics.

While journalism provides information, choosing what kind of information to publish and in what way to present it has an impact. For example, drawing attention to things that cause a strong reaction (perhaps even in one’s own favor) may draw attention away from other topics that might have been more important in supporting a reader’s political decision-making process (such as the personal life of a politician versus the political opinions of a politician).

Biased content is also a part of the issue. 78% of Americans believe that it is never acceptable for a news organization to favor a political party, whereas 14% find it sometimes acceptable (Mitchell, Simmons, Matsa & Silver 2018). I am sure no reader of this blog is unfamiliar with the political division of American news organizations. Research results confirm the situation; 52% of Americans thought that news organizations are not reporting all sides fairly on political issues (Mitchell et al. 2018). The opinions were rather mixed – 47% found news media reporting all sides well (Mitchell et al. 2018) – but considering the alarming amount of people who feel reporting is unfair, there sure is an issue.

Biased content can feed specific opinions to a reader who might have poor media literacy or just agrees to the opinion without questioning it because it supports his or her current views. This can be done by, for example, leaving some aspects out, disregarding all criticism, or even directly attacking and presenting only negative information on the opposing opinions – simply put, by not describing the whole situation so that the reader would more easily be able to form their own opinions of it. Some level of bias is in my opinion acceptable, if it is clear and based on arguments, and information is provided from all relevant aspects and not just the supporting ones.

I do not want to underestimate people’s ability to be critical, but I want to draw attention to how difficult it can be in today’s news and media. The problem that I see in the political bias of U.S. news organizations, or more specifically in the lack of fair reporting on political issues, is that they only present one side of the story. If the reader does not search for information on the topic elsewhere, they only see that one side. This, in turn, can be thought to further contribute to the political polarization of the nation, which will further complicate the actualization of democracy.

Sources:

American Press Institute (2019a) Good stories empower the reader <https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/makes-good-story/good-stories-empower-reader/>, retrieved 5.12.2019.

American Press Institute (2019b) What is the purpose of journalism? <https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/purpose-journalism/>, retrieved 5.12.2019.

Mitchell, Amy – Simmons, Katie – Matsa, Katerina Eva – Silver, Laura (2018) Publics Globally Want Unbiased News Coverage, but Are Divided on Whether Their News Media Deliver. Pew Research Center. <https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/01/11/publics-globally-want-unbiased-news-coverage-but-are-divided-on-whether-their-news-media-deliver/#maps>, retrieved 5.12.2019.

Fatma Sena Kale

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

In the past, but not more than a decade ago, people were using traditional media to receive news, to watch politicians on TV, and to follow what was going on around the world. Then, the development of social media changed nearly everything. Since the traditional media are not completely reliable anymore, social media became the number one way to find reliable sources. As traditional media are becoming close friends of the government and are not objective in their reporting, social media have broken taboos and provided a forum for organizing public events and activist movements.

One of the most important activist movements that achieved its goal through social media took place in Turkey. Sule Cet, a 23-year-old woman living in Ankara, the capital of Turkey, was murdered by her ex-boss and a friend of his in 2018. The two men come from powerful Turkish families that have a good relationship with the government. That is why traditional media – such as the newspapers Milliyet and Hurriyet – that were working under the government tried to depict Sule Cet as a liar. The newspapers claimed that this was not a murder but a suicide. Since Ms. Cet was young and single, it was seen as immoral for her to be with two men in the other one’s house. The newspapers blamed her and said that she was not a virgin, and that is why she deserved to die.

Yet, Sule Cet was not the only woman who was murdered by a man. She was one of 400 women in 2019 who were killed by men. This sparked a fire on social media platforms. Various organizations created events under the hashtag #SuleCetIcınAdalet (Justice for Sule Cet), and they pressured the Ministry of Justice and the Court. Since people were aware that the traditional media were not doing what they should and were acting against women, people supported the movement and raised their voices on Twitter. Moreover, many celebrities and well-known people shared their ideas under the hashtag and called on people to gather in front of the Court. One and half years later, the murderer Cagatay Aksu was sentenced to life in prison for the sexual assault and murder of Sule Cet, and his friend Berk Akand was sentenced to 18 years for assisting in the crimes.

The success of social media in this case means a lot for Turkish people, for women, and for me. Without Twitter, the activists could not have become popular. The reliability of traditional media has collapsed in Turkey and they have started to work for the government. It can be clearly seen that social media replaced traditional media, because we who defended Sule Cet’s rights and fought against injustice achieved our goal on Twitter, not in the newspapers. Furthermore, after the court decisions, many newspapers who wrote against Sule Cet apologized, which can be counted as the achievement of social media and public pressure. As a woman, I am proud of myself for being a part of this movement, because it is not only our triumph. It belongs to all women who were murdered by men. We know that Sule Cet will not be the last victim because the laws in Turkey do not work properly and traditional media do everything to justify the actions of the government. Yet, we know that we have social media and if we stick together as human beings, as women, we can do whatever we want, because we have the forum to raise our voices. The power of social media tore the traditional media apart, and we are so proud!

Source:

“Activists in Turkey hail convictions in femicide case.” BBC News, December 5, 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-50673700

How should social media be regulated? In their blog posts, students Anteri Pastila, Jaakko Dickman, Prunelle Dauty, Xueying Ma, and Héloïse Cao discuss freedom of speech, ethical challenges, and why social media companies should pay us in exchange for our data. The blog posts have been produced as a part of the course Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States at the University of Turku.

Miten sosiaalista mediaa tulisi säännellä? Blogikirjoituksissaan opiskelijat Anteri Pastila, Jaakko Dickman, Prunelle Dauty, Xueying Ma ja Héloïse Cao pohtivat sananvapautta, sosiaalisen median eettisiä haasteita sekä sitä, miksi yritysten tulisi maksaa käyttäjille keräämästään datasta. Blogikirjoitukset on tehty osana Turun yliopiston Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States –kurssia.

Anteri Pastila

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

The best thing about social media is that it gives everyone a way to voice out their opinions and thoughts. The worst thing about social media is that it gives everyone a way to voice out their opinions and thoughts.

I have often quoted the observation by philosopher David Hume: “[A]s FORCE [sic] is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion.” That is to say that especially in today’s society, the population is controlled by controlling their opinion, and, when it comes to social media, it is easy to see that social media is just one more corner of society that can be controlled. I must note that there are many ways social media can be controlled, ranging from taxation of the tech giants to controlling the material allowed on these platforms. I will focus on the latter.

Jeff Jarvis draws a parallel between aims to control harmful speech today and aims to control porn in the past, claiming that “[b]oth are wars over speech.” Jarvis’ article raises a central issue: how to define harmful speech? And who is to define it? Personally, I do not think harmful speech can be clearly defined; there are simply too many factors at play in each (potential) case. Jarvis posits yet another question: “[w]ho is being protected?” I have observed that argumentation in support of legislation that would affect speech is often accompanied by concern for different groups of people. This has been the case with political correctness, where the primary concern used to be the violation of Christian morals within the general population, and nowadays it is mostly about the position of ethnic and racial minorities. There are many sentiments, including one in Jarvis’ article, which describe these concerns as elitist. The idea is that a group cannot fend for itself, and that they need “me” to fight for them. In another words, that group is weak, and “I” am strong. Furthermore, this line of thinking aims to preserve the power dynamic between these entities. As benevolent as these concerns may be, they do not necessarily seek to equalize the society. The similarities between political correctness and calls to control harmful speech online are uncanny.

One aspect of the call for censorship is the underlying assumption that deplatforming actually removes the problem. It does not. The users of the banned medium or website can simply start using another website. “Out of sight, out of mind” goes the proverb. Perhaps so, but the (perceived) problem still remains. Let me quote Stephen Fry: “I believe one of the greatest human failings is to prefer to be right than to be effective.” Fry said these words in a debate on political correctness, but they fit in this context as well. It is fine for policies to have a goal of making things right. However, that should not be their first priority. The policies should, first and foremost, aim to be effective.  Fry adds further: “Progress is not achieved by preachers and guardians of morality, but […] by madmen, hermits, heretics, dreamers, rebels, and sceptics.”

In the end, most of this comes down to personal freedoms. Regarding these freedoms, my favourite stand-up comedian George Carlin once mentioned that American citizens having rights is an illusion. He used the example of Japanese-Americans in 1942 to argue that these rights can always be taken away, in which case they are not rights, but privileges. “And”, Carlin said, “if you read the news even badly, you know that every year, the list [Bill of Rights] gets shorter and shorter and shorter.” Unfortunately, it would seem that the “governors,” to employ Hume’s expression, have been prevailing for a long time.

Sources:

Carlin, George. 2008. It’s Bad For Ya; You Have No Rights. Atlantic Records. Accessed online: https://open.spotify.com/album/7ylXUHXIapLAsGfjPo3JCB (Listening requires an account.)

Jaakko Dickman

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Is Facebook simply a platform that neutrally mediates decentralized information created by its users or is it something closer to a publishing company? This issue has been central to the debate on the need to regulate Facebook and other social networking sites.

The debate has further intensified after the reported Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election and after the live streaming of the Christchurch mosque shootings. Actor-comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is the latest to criticize Facebook and offer his thoughts on the issue.

In his award speech for the ADL International Leadership Award, Cohen strongly criticized social networking sites (SNSs) for compromising democratic ideals and promoting hate and violence. He stated that “on the internet, everything can appear equally legitimate” and that this is dismantling our understanding of shared objective facts that are fundamental to a functioning democracy. Cohen concluded his speech by declaring that “it is time to finally call these companies what they really are: largest publishers in history.”[i]

At the heart of Cohen’s speech is the idea that SNSs “should abide by basic standards and practices,”[ii] as do traditional media outlets such as newspapers and TV news. Thus, they should be considered as publishers. To this day, SNSs have evaded responsibility over their content by stating that they are simply platforms that mediate content and thus not liable for the content they host. This indemnity is solidified by the US Communications Act of 1996, which gave an almost complete autonomy for SNSs to regulate themselves (Flew & al 2019, 38).

However, one could argue that the nature of networked communication has changed so drastically that the new SNSs have outgrown the legislation. Furthermore, the growing interference and curatorial work done by the SNSs has made their ‘neutral platform’ nature questionable.

It is obvious that Facebook, among other SNSs, is not a neutral mediator of networked communication. One of the clearest examples of this came in 2016 when Facebook’s “Trending Review Guidelines” were leaked to the press. The guidelines revealed how Facebook’s news operation is perpetrated by human intervention similar to traditional media organizations.[iii] Still, we have seen that the self-regulative practices of SNSs have not been effective enough to tackle the spreading of violence, hate speech, and political interference.

 Without acknowledging the new pressures to regulate these sites in a new cultural, political, societal, and technological environment, these companies will not be held accountable for their shortcomings. So, what is holding us back from insisting that these sites are, in fact, publishers of content and from enforcing governmental regulation on them?

Nowadays, when social media companies are operating globally, nation-specific regulation might cause SNSs such as Facebook to become scattered, with different content available in different parts of the world. Flew, Martin, and Suzor state that this type of a “global Splinternet” might have a negative impact on the free flow of information that has epitomized the period after mid-1990s (Flew & al., 46). As asserted by the CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg in his speech at Georgetown University, social media has become “the Fifth Estate” that allows people all over the world to express themselves.[iv] The power to give voice to people living under brutal political regimes is a feature that we do not want to take away from SNSs.

Presently, the biggest internet companies are regulating the flow of information unelected and without accountability. According to Cohen, this constitutes ideological imperialism.[v] The more SNSs take part in “monitoring, regulating and deleting content” the more dire is the need for public accountability (Flew & al., 45). However, instead of traditional nation-specific legislature, the ability to regulate this new digital environment seems to call for active involvement of global regulative bodies. Nevertheless, the new role of SNSs and their power to dictate the flow of information requires new regulative approaches and ideas as their counterforce.

Bibliography:

Anti-Defamation League YouTube, ADL International Leadership Award Presented to Sacha Baron Cohen at Never Is Now 2019, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=24s> (Accessed Dec 8^th 2019)

Flew, Terry, Martin, Fiona, & Suzor, Nicolas (2019) “Internet Regulation As Media Policy: Rethinking the Question of Digital Communication Platform Governance.” Journal of Digital Media & Policy 10, no. 1: 33, 33–50.

Thielman, Sam (2016) ”Facebook news selection is in hands of editors not algorithms, documents show.” The Guardian. <https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-trending-news-leaked-documents-editor-guidelines> (Accessed Dec 8^th 2019)

Washington Post YouTube, Watch live: Facebook CEO Zuckerberg speaks at Georgetown University, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MTpd7YOnyU&t=2777s> (Accessed Dec 8^th 2019)

---

[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=20s

[ii] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=20s

[iii] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-trending-news-leaked-documents-editor-guidelines

[iv] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MTpd7YOnyU&t=2777s

[v] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM&t=20s

Prunelle Dauty

This blog post was produced as part of the course “Social Media, Ideologies, and Ethics in the United States” at the University of Turku.

Social Media are everywhere nowadays, and whether we like it or not, we need to use them in our everyday life. They are slowly becoming indispensable, and not using them means being isolated from the rest of the world. The question is: is that something bad? Not necessarily. Social media are making our life so much easier, allowing us to communicate across the globe in real time. They are also giving a voice to people who have been oppressed for a long time, and who are finally able to speak up! But – because there is always a but – there is a flip side to those amazing possiblities that social media are offering us. That flip side is that in exchange for all of those advantages, we are giving them our personal information. They have access to our whole life through our phones, and they are using it to make money. I know, it sounds like a lame remake of George Orwell’s 1984, but wake up guys, this is the sad reality.

Social Media are everywhere nowadays, and whether we like it or not, we need to use them in our everyday life. They are slowly becoming indispensable, and not using them means being isolated from the rest of the world. The question is: is that something bad? Not necessarily. Social media are making our life so much easier, allowing us to communicate across the globe in real time. They are also giving a voice to people who have been oppressed for a long time, and who are finally able to speak up! But – because there is always a but – there is a flip side to those amazing possiblities that social media are offering us. That flip side is that in exchange for all of those advantages, we are giving them our personal information. They have access to our whole life through our phones, and they are using it to make money. I know, it sounds like a lame remake of George Orwell’s 1984, but wake up guys, this is the sad reality.

The Cambrige Analytica scandal is generally the first affair that comes to our minds when the misuse of data is mentioned. Indeed, a couple of years ago, it became known that during the U.S. 2016 presidential election campaign Cambridge Analytica, a company that worked with Donald Trump’s election team, harvested millions of Facebook profiles in order to be able to influence them and make them vote for Trump. Following the scandal, Facebook defended itself explaining that it had nothing to do with it. This brings up the question of data protection. How can we protect ourselves from those companies? It seems impossible without quitting social media. As it was demonstrated by CBC News in their very instructive video “Privacy and smartphone apps: What data your phone may be giving away” (you should definitely check it out if you haven’t watched it yet), protecting our personal data is complicated and except if we are ready to read the thousands of pages of users conditions, we are giving away all of our data without even benefiting from it.

Here is the interesting part: if we can’t stop using social media, and we can’t really stop them from using our data either, maybe we could try to benefit from it? 

Andrew Yang, a potential candidate for the presidential election and former tech executive, mentioned this idea during the Democratic presidential debate at Otterbein University in Ohio on October 15, 2019. He explained that “right now, our data is worth more than oil” and that it would be only fair if the users “get a slice” of the money that their data is making. In addition, it would be a good way to gain back power against the large-scale companies. This idea is not new, and several federal lawmakers have already tried to implement it in different states, but as of yet without success.

In my opinion, this would be a solution to all of those data protection problems. It would be a way for the users to gain back the power that they have lost during these last years, and while failing to fully protect our data, it would at least offer us compensation and perhaps also the possibility to choose the information that we share. Indeed, being paid in exchange for sharing data would imply that the users’ permission and maybe even a signed contract is required, because as soon as money is involved, regulations are made.

Sources:

• « Facebook launches app that will pay users for their data | Technology | The Guardian ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jun/11/facebook-user-data-app-privacy-study.
• « Social Media Companies Collect So Much Data Even They Can’t Remember All The Ways They Surveil Us ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2018/10/25/social-media-companies-collect-so-much-data-even-they-cant-remember-all-the-ways-they-surveil-us/#5bf058a57d0b.
• « The Cambridge Analytica scandal changed the world – but it didn’t change Facebook | Technology | The Guardian ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/mar/17/the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-changed-the-world-but-it-didnt-change-facebook.
• « Andrew Yang: Facebook, Amazon, Google should pay for users’ data ». Retrieved on December 5, 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/17/andrew-yang-facebook-amazon-google-should-pay-for-users-data.html.