The Facebook dilemma (who owns our information?)
I read yesterday the article by John Hodgkinson on the Guardian “With firends like these…” and felt a bit disappointed because of the response of some friends with who I shared this article. Hodgkinson doesn’t hide his preference for non virtual relations and this is a honest position. He starts his article claiming this preference and after he goes along with a set of statements that put Facebook in a suspicious position. He argues that Facebook (15 bn USD) is a big “business” where the huge information of the 59 million members of the network is the content that the owners of the social network use to make money with, by sharing this information for marketing purposes with big companies like Coca Cola. What is even worst is that Hodgkinson explains how “The CIA can look at the stuff when they feel like it”.
My deception comes from the assumption of some honest people that Internet is a place where everyone can be suspiciously investigated, and that this is one of the risks that the progress of Internet demands.
I don’t share this point of view, because it assumes that malicious intentions of shareholders are companions for progress. The mean is not always the smartest, but the weakest. I prefer strong convictions, and fair ones, than malicious strategies to achieve the goals. Maybe it sounds naive, but it makes sense to me.
Social Networks are the engine of our progress. Human’s evolution comes from learning through communication and sharing feelings and motivation, that stimulate creativity. There’s also a learning process through failure, but without a compensating feeling we wouldn’t be motivated for improvement.
By observing Social Networks, if they are on the Internet or not, we can recognise a lot of personal interests, that build the fundamental dynamics of knowledge creation under the rules of the so called “Social Capital”. Many experts like Burt, but also Lin have explained the different benefits and limits of social capital, but what makes social capital more effective is trust and confidence among the members of the networks. Among the nodes.
Thus, I cannot accept that a Social Network can be built for purposes that members don’t even know. That only the owners of the platform know. Transparency is needed to foster trust, and after reading Hodgkinson’s article I felt deceived by Facebook. They deceived my trust. Maybe their intentions are not absolutely hidden, but nowhere is told that they pretend to use your information or even let others scrutinize them.
Anyway, I knew about the use on the Internet of tools that could track your activity, and even your statements and the opinions that you shared privately with trusted people, but such an evident tool like Facebook that fosters or stimulates people to share their preferences in art, politics, consumption, religion, sex, professional activities, works, etc., is something that should not be used for commercial interests or for security scrutiny without a clear statement to the members.
Oriol
P-S- ON the YouTube I found a video from another source than Hodgkinson that explain also the dangers existing in sharing information on Facebook. It’s worth to see:
