Would it surprise you if one told you that social media was first introduced in 550 BC?(citation). Granted it was not through the same medium we use right now, however the concept of passing information and messages through a specific medium have been around for over a millennia. Where our ancestors did it through paper and ink, we resort to the internet albeit at a larger cost. this brings us to our topic at hand, the critical position ‘Facebook’ has cleverly conquered in our lives, subtly dictating everything we do, while at the same time using us, the users as a medium of exchange.
Starting from the types of clothes we wear down to the basic necessities we require. This essay will work to warn people against the consequences of using Facebook and its services in our everyday lives.
Established in 2004, Facebook (formerly Facemash) had started off as a student website, created for satirical purposes where it was used to compare pictures of female students at Harvard University(citation). Its creator, Mark Elliot Zuckerberg was in his second year at the same institution during its launch. What Mr. Zuckerberg had unknowingly discovered at the time however, was the typical yet vulnerable trait us as human beings possess, the need for social interaction.
127 our experts are availableright now
What Facemash lacked in flair, it made up for in utility. For the very first time in a very long time the concept of social media was not limited to messaging apps such as MSN or Yahoo messenger but an app which had an interface possessing elements which brought people much closer to each other, for the first time ever it was entertaining.
Marshall McLuhan had first introduced the theory of media ecology in 1964, where it argued that media acts as extensions of the human senses and shapes the way societies are built, Facebook is one brilliant example of just that. Facebook, from its birth, had started a chain reaction. A reaction which would shape the way we look at social media in the 21st century. The first users of facebook used it to assess value of other individuals through the comparison of pictures much like what we do right now however a lot more blatant. People viewed facebook as the platform where they would be able to showcase their wonderful lives albeit hiding the insecurities that plague them. It was a whole other world, a digital world where anyone could be whatever desired to be and that is exactly where this paper’s argument begins.
It is by no accident that facebook remains a ‘free’ website till date, In fact Mr. Zuckerberg envisioned Facebook’s future almost perfectly, the concept of audience commodity where a the user themselves are used as a revenue stream is truly a brilliant one. Benefiting almost both parties, where the users get access to their own little paradise free of charge while the business does not even lose a single penny, however as fair as it sounds it is not always so.
To better understand this let us first look at the ownership structure of facebook. With an annual revenue of $55.85 billion in 2018, facebook has an estimated growth of 37% every year (citation). Facebook has a total of 76 business/acquisitions under its name but for the sake of this essay in regards to its expansion we will be looking at only Instagram and WhatsApp.
Facebook bought Instagram on the 9th of April 2012 (citation) horizontally integrating within the social media market and expanding its revenue. This may seem as a normal action likely to be taken by any expanding business however this is one of pivotal strategic moves Facebook has made which contributed to its success. when buying Instagram Facebook made sure to eliminate a threat, a threat which could have caused Facebook a significant portion of gainable revenue. This strategy can also be evidenced by Facebook’s previous actions aswell, where it bought friend-feed (a real time feed aggregator) on the 10th of August 2009 (citation). Facebook had every intention of boosting its sales and gather net info.
An example of Facebook vertically integrating is the fact that it purchased watsapp for $19 billion on February 19th 2014 (citation). When Facebook took this huge step it made sure eliminate the largest threat it had to its messaging aspect of the business. It incorporated many of its functions into watsapp which further connected the the two businesses.
The reason for which Facebook employs such an aggressive survival strategy is simple yet deadly, it wishes to have complete control over what information is conveyed throughout the world. A wise man once said knowledge is power and Facebook does that statement justice. Where other businesses sell their products and services in exchange for a legal tender, Facebook ‘sells’ information. This brings us to the second part of this argument the voluntary surrender of user data. Due to the immense power and dominance it has achieved through its expansion, Facebook also has access to a wealth of user information which enables it to have control over user preference and perspective.
In a digital environment, online businesses make revenue out of two aspects the first being placing a charge for the services offered and the second being through advertisers. Facebook employs the second where is uses its user data in order to place ads which would sway user interests. Millions of users of the service remain unaware how their information is exploited and used to make them buy other goods and services, which is completely legal and fair, however the main breach occurs when this very data is then sold to other entities, especially those with political interests.
One of the biggest questions asked in communications studies is regarding who owns the media and how the media is used in respect to the owner. The very question was asked to Facebook on 10th April 2018, when the US congress Mark Zuckerberg regarding the use of data(citation).
It was revealed that Facebook sold almost 50 million user profile data to London based data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica, the very firm which worked with President Donald trump’s election campaign(citation). It was then later speculated that the firm used the data to sway voter opinion. Such events stand as evidence to the democratic failure we, as a society face at the brink of digitization. What is even more terrifying to imagine is the fact that even with a $5 billion lawsuit against Facebook. The company is not even affected in the least.
Due to the immense dominance Facebook has secured in the online market, such illegal stances, even when highlighted and penalized, caused the organization to lose very little. Even now Facebook functions at full capacity with countless questions still left unanswered.
This raises the big question of user safety; can we really consider the online world to be secure? Even when media policies established to protect us fail to serve their purpose?
Large figures such as Donald trump, or in fact anyone with enough wealth and power have the ability control the way the users of such social networking sites, or in this case a large portion of the north American populace. Governments use such sites to survey its citizens while at the same time promote propaganda. Facebook’s targeted advertisement algorithms do not help either. This is the reality that is Facebook.
To make matters worse mainstream media has found its way into the platform as well with advertisers deciding what Facebook promotes. The vicious cycle of data collection in return for free access only adds to the problem. Sih Yuliana Wahyuningtyas, in her article ‘Abuse of Dominance in Non-Negotiable Privacy Policy in the Digital Market’, explains it best, “Market dominance is defined by various factors. While controlling big data does not directly contribute to gaining market share, it leads to having strong bargaining power. It can create power asymmetry between the data controller and its users that could result in a poor privacy policy in the first place. With the work of network effects in MSPs, it might lead to abuse of power to stifle competition.”(citation).
