Along with ever-changing and progression of digital media functions (here we will look at the internet as an example and social networking sites, namely Facebook available through the internet) readily available to those who have access (i.e. a steady income which will allow for such a 'luxury') there is often a question that will be raised as to whether users are handing over their privacy or whether it is being taken from them?
With the set up of social networks such as Facebook, Flikr, Twitter and a long list of others people young and old and from all social groups are finding themselves drawn into what I see as a obsessively unnessaryly open world of cyberstalking and obsession. What happened to a time where we called up family and/or friends from landline telephones or wrote a letter as opposed to logging online through iphones, laptops etc simply to see whether a notification has been made to oneself.
Now people are defined and defining their lives by status' "I want chocolate..." and "The world is going to the shitter..." regardless of insignificant and non-sensical status how much do users put out into the nasty yet wonderful cucoon world wide web and all the social network "viruses" that we become so naively become sucked into.
What I am really trying to argue is exactly what James Cowen has articulated in the most perfect way immaginable;
"1 You Should quit Facebook."
"2 You probably won't." (2010)
Why is this do you ask? As Cowen reinforces, there is the strong allegation that Facebook has the capability and does change its privacy policies most likely as often as you change your status (note: I do strongly believe this but I may be exaggerating a little as I strongly dislike Facebook!) As Cowen as so nicely put it into words, "Mark Zuckerberg...founder is a false prophet who claims his generation values openness..." Zuckerberg also labells those who wish to hold onto their privacy - "old-fashioned" and "fuddy-duddy" (2010) What's wrong with Zuckerbergs' claims, 1) PRIVACY is most definitely not old-fashioned and
2) I'm sure he would say anything he's making billions (again I exaggerate but I'm probably not far off) and meanwhile us users are making squat!
Unfortunately for us, our battle for privacy in relation to Facebook has been lost. Facebook is predicted to have 500 million users in the very near future, the option of being anonoymous is not even avaible rather we have to opt out of being tracked as opposed to opting in if WE want to remain private online anymore (David Fewer quoted in "Why we'll never escape Facebook, Cower: 2010) Funnily enough, even if you decide to opt out of Facebook altogether (which I did) your profile is never ever completed deleted, you are able to log back in at anytime. Friends - will still be there, information, photos, comments etc all still there.
Sad, yes. True, unfortunately yes. It is unknown what happens with users information and whether or not it is being providedto third parties (not sure if this is likely however, I believe it's used for profiling).
Although, at the end of the day,whatever relationships we share with social networking sites/forums the majority of the control is left and the responsibilites (I believe) lies with users. You choose to sign up. You choose to share your personal information and ultimately you have to decide, is posting a status,photos of yourself and chatting with friends you can see or communicate with in many other ways, ultimately worth loosing a part of your privacy?
So I leave you to think about this and come to your own conclusion and I apologise if this has turned into a rant solely about Facebook.
If you would like to read James Cowen's entire article click on the following link:
http://0-proquest.umi.com.alpha2.latrobe.edu.au/pqdweb?index=4&did=2074812151&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1280999888&clientId=20828
Now people are defined and defining their lives by status' "I want chocolate..." and "The world is going to the shitter..." regardless of insignificant and non-sensical status how much do users put out into the nasty yet wonderful cucoon world wide web and all the social network "viruses" that we become so naively become sucked into.
What I am really trying to argue is exactly what James Cowen has articulated in the most perfect way immaginable;
"1 You Should quit Facebook."
"2 You probably won't." (2010)
Why is this do you ask? As Cowen reinforces, there is the strong allegation that Facebook has the capability and does change its privacy policies most likely as often as you change your status (note: I do strongly believe this but I may be exaggerating a little as I strongly dislike Facebook!) As Cowen as so nicely put it into words, "Mark Zuckerberg...founder is a false prophet who claims his generation values openness..." Zuckerberg also labells those who wish to hold onto their privacy - "old-fashioned" and "fuddy-duddy" (2010) What's wrong with Zuckerbergs' claims, 1) PRIVACY is most definitely not old-fashioned and
2) I'm sure he would say anything he's making billions (again I exaggerate but I'm probably not far off) and meanwhile us users are making squat!
Unfortunately for us, our battle for privacy in relation to Facebook has been lost. Facebook is predicted to have 500 million users in the very near future, the option of being anonoymous is not even avaible rather we have to opt out of being tracked as opposed to opting in if WE want to remain private online anymore (David Fewer quoted in "Why we'll never escape Facebook, Cower: 2010) Funnily enough, even if you decide to opt out of Facebook altogether (which I did) your profile is never ever completed deleted, you are able to log back in at anytime. Friends - will still be there, information, photos, comments etc all still there.
Sad, yes. True, unfortunately yes. It is unknown what happens with users information and whether or not it is being providedto third parties (not sure if this is likely however, I believe it's used for profiling).
Although, at the end of the day,whatever relationships we share with social networking sites/forums the majority of the control is left and the responsibilites (I believe) lies with users. You choose to sign up. You choose to share your personal information and ultimately you have to decide, is posting a status,photos of yourself and chatting with friends you can see or communicate with in many other ways, ultimately worth loosing a part of your privacy?
So I leave you to think about this and come to your own conclusion and I apologise if this has turned into a rant solely about Facebook.
If you would like to read James Cowen's entire article click on the following link:
http://0-proquest.umi.com.alpha2.latrobe.edu.au/pqdweb?index=4&did=2074812151&SrchMode=2&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1280999888&clientId=20828
Social media certainly possesses all the flaws that you identify, and probably a few more beside. That doesn't make it wrong or unnecessary, however.
ReplyDeleteThere's an old saw - "Gun's don't kill people, people kill people". I partly disagree. Guns are part of the problem. They make killing easier. People must share the blame, though - and a gun can fulfill its purpose without causing any harm. (I'm thinking of target shooting, here.)
Social media can also be considered part of the problem. I'd argue, though, that it can be used without causing any harm - in the context of your post, someone can be active on social media without making themselves vulnerable and exposed.
Theoretically, anyway. I'm sure we'd agree that many users are clueless and reveal waaay too much of themselves - but they only have themselves to blame. They CAN protect themselves. The information on how to manage online privacy is out there and readily available.
Anyhoo ... I like the dark, pessimistic tone of your post, and I look forward to reading more.
Having now read the full post, you do rely on a lot of assumptions. Having said that, I reckon that most of them are reasonable assumptions.
ReplyDeleteYou don't credit facebook's users with much common sense. Again, you're fairly on the money, I suspect. Within my tight circle of friends, however, we all manage our privacy settings well. There's also the possibility that some users might lie about their name, dob, location,et cetera when setting up their account. In short, I don't think that the battle for privacy has been lost.
Zuckerberg does appear to be winning, though.
You make some good points, and some interesting points. You also pose an excellent conundrum. Is it worth posting that status update? Do you gain enough ... something to make up for the concomitant incremental erosion of your privacy?
How an individual answers that may reveal a lot about that individual.
Thank you for your honest opinion. It is very much appreciated and I will take in all into account when writing my next post. Re-reading it is relying on a lot of assumptions and personal experience as well as the experiences of friends.
ReplyDeleteI have to work of my expression as well as writing, I feel my written is even in the same league as yours!