Too big to burst. Will Facebook’s faults spell its end? One company. Over two billion users - and almost $12 billion in annual revenue. Since its inception in a Harvard dorm room, the social network has grown to become the dominant way we interact with each other. Is it time to rein in Facebook?
By Harry Lye
T
he first place to look for information when starting this article was a freelance journalist’s Facebook group. It seems you can’t begin to investigate Facebook without having to use it. Since founding the company Mark Zuckerberg has become one of the world’s richest men, his reach is enormous, and for all its faults the company has created some amazing stories. Helping to facilitate revolutions in the Arab Spring, connect long lost family members, and just make the simple act of meeting up with your friends easier. However, in 2016, the platform began to fracture. Scandal after scandal after scandal hit the company chipping away at its
credibility. From ‘Fake News’ to people photo-shopping Instagram posts leading to a rise in eating disorders, and social media’s links to spiking anxiety across the world. With a growing list of charges against what parliament called “Digital Gangsters”, it begs the question, is it time Facebook was regulated? How would can you regulate it? Would regulation even make a difference? The beginning of western society’s conscious shift in its view of Facebook can be traced back to the 2016 U.S presidential election and the 2016 Brexit referendum. The plethora of ‘Fake News’ that infiltrated the site was simply staggering. In fact, the 20 biggest fake news stories received over a eight million engagements, one million
more than the 20 biggest real stories. The site became a hotbed of post-truth, fuelled by its users echo chambers insatiable desire for anything against the opposition, that they could share with their friends and their insatiable
Fake News on Facebook: the Pope endorsing Trump for President, and a Hillary Clinton murder-suicide desire for anything against the opposition, round and round the cycle went. We had Pizzagate, the pope endorsing Donald Trump for President, and a Hillary Clinton MurderSuicide conspiracy. This led to a catalogue of cases against Facebook causing hearings in Congress, the Senate, Parliament and the EU devolving from Fake
What happens when you leave Facebook?
S
arah, Journalist and Founder of sincerelyessie.co.uk, discussed the effect leaving the site had on Productivity, her social life and more. Did your social life see a decline after deleting Facebook? Sarah: After deleting Facebook my social life has seen a decline but then again, I have recently had a baby so it’s been a positive in terms of being more focused on my little one. Do you miss using Facebook? S: To be honest, I haven’t really missed using Facebook. Spending hours just mindlessly scrolling decreases your productivity and I’ve found I can get so much more done now. Have you experienced any negative effects since deleting Facebook? S: My social life is nonexistent but I really don’t mind at all as I love spending time with family and taking part
News, Mishandling of Data and Cambridge Analytica. This has led to £500,000 fines from the EU in the wake of Cambridge Analytica, joint Republican and Democratic legislation attempts to protect user privacy alongside
in hobbies I wouldn’t otherwise have done if I still had Facebook. For many leaving Facebook has opened their eyes to new (old) ways of interacting, Reddit users shared their thoughts on leaving Facebook with this author: “I can plainly say that my social life has been better as only the people that I wanted to speak with in the first place are the ones that I am still in contact with. I don’t have an urge to go back at all.” “I stopped seeing negative posts all the time that frustrated me. I was hesitant because I thought I would miss it, but I never have.” For many the bold step of leaving of Facebook leads to positive results, although former users might not be as up to date, many believe leaving the site improved their social lives. Making people focus on what’s in front of them, rather than just a screen, endlessly scrolling a timeline.
investigations and hearing in Congress and the Senate. Facebook itself to introduce fact checking. A measure which drew headlines at the start but has begun to fall apart after numerous of the companies it partnered with pulled out. With Tom Watson, the deputy leader of the labour party, calling for: “independent regulation with a tough powers and sanctions regime to curb the worst excesses of surveillance capitalism and the forces trying to use technology to subvert our democracy.” There have been attempts to stop the wheel of ‘Fake News’ continuing its incessant
crushing of truth, logic, and basic common sense. Perhaps now governments need something bold and bigger than tit-for-tat, half hearted regulation. Facebooks troubles are deep-rooted, and its monopolisation of the transmission of information only comparison is Standard Oil’s monopolisation of, well, oil. If you think about it, how do you consume your news, you may buy the paper, have a subscription to Private Eye,
John D. Rockefeller founded Standard Oil in 1870
or watch the news at 10, 6 or CBBC Newsround. But by and large, most information comes from the little black mirror in your pocket or the slightly larger black mirror at your desk. Facebooks influence on the world of information is staggering, but also, deeply flawed and often unchecked. However, the tables seem to have turned with people waking up to the issues the platform presents, As Senator John Thune said in response to Mark
Zuckerberg’s senate hearing into Cambridge Analytica: “This should be a wake-up call for the tech community... We’re listening, America is listening, and quite possibly
Tropics’ to the presidency of Brazil only added to Facebooks woes. During the election, WhatsApp (owned by Facebook) became a crucial and integral part of
Facebook’s influence on the world of information is staggering, but also, deeply flawed and often unchecked the world is listening too.” The recent election of the far-right Jair Bolsonaro donned ‘The Trump of the
the new sharing process. Campaigners in Brazil used software to scour Facebook for Brazilians’ phone numbers
and then added them to mass groups to send them news about the election. With around 100 million users in Brazil, and almost immediate access WhatsApp made perfect sense as a target for misinformation, the openness of Facebook, and users misunderstanding of privacy settings - perpetuated by lower levels of tech literacy - left information like the phone numbers of swathes of Brazil easily accessible. Because of this mass-misuse
▷
20th century. The company was once the dominant force in the American oil industry. John D. Rockefeller, its founder was the wealthiest man in America. But then, Like Facebook, the scandals hit and the company’s monopolistic practices were brought into the spotlight. In 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was enacted by Congress. This law was
Facebook introudced the ‘Like’ button to the site in 2008
WhatsApp has now made it so a link can only be sent to a few people at a time, however last year, political campaigners could access as many as 300,000 users at once. In an investigation, just before last year’s election, the BBC found that up to ‘1000 numbers’ could be accessed in 10 minutes and then grouped by demographics. The same investigation showed that one million phone numbers cost just over £6000 to access. Not a lot of money for such enormous reach. Just like the other issues created by social media, the laws surrounding the misuse of the app in Brazil are vague, with legislators having to play catch-up. WhatsApp was bought by Facebook for $19 billion dollars in 2014. Dwarfing the $1 billion dollar sum the company spent on Instagram two years prior. Instagram for the large part has managed to steer clear from the scandals involving its parent company. As users have drifted away from Facebook Instagram has largely managed to not have the same fate. That is not to say Instagram is off the hook. Models and celebrities have been caught on multiple occasions using Photoshop to alter their images, leading to unrealistic body standards for people that use the platform. Especially young girls. Just last year Instagram had to crack down on communities that promoted the spread of eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia that were being spread throughout the platform. Users were sharing images with the hashtag #proana and #anaismyfriend (ana meaning anorexia). These images were often shared by so-called anorexia coaches, who also spread to WhatsApp, who essentially promoted eating disorders as a means of becoming skinny
and attractive. Since 2012 when searching for images related to eating disorders the app would ask users if they needed help, now however it will do this, but alongside it searches for the above hashtags will yield no results. This has done little to stifle the spread of these images, as users often simply misspell one of the words to bypass the filtering. In December, last year Instagram told the BBC: “We, therefore, go beyond simply removing content and hashtags and take a holistic approach by offering people looking at or posting certain content the option to access tips and support, talk to a friend, or reach out directly [to support groups].” Although Instagram is very proactive at tackling the issue, due to the sheer scale of content on Instagram users can always find a way around filtering. In February, the Guardian reported on how the
Standard Oil once controlled 88% of the American oil industry, and vast swathes of the railroad network
affects day to day lives. In recent weeks, a scathing leak from Facebook revealed mass lobbying of officials in Europe and the US to weaken regulation around data privacy, primarily in the EU and may be the final nail in the distrust coffin for Zuckerberg’s information monopoly. The scale of the lobbying efforts revealed how the internet giant courted the help of the then Irish prime minister, Enda Kennedy, were
One million phone numbers cost just over £6000 to access
service was being urged to ban images relating to eating disorders, as it did in the past with images of self-harm on the app, with users complaining of how Instagram’s current reporting process is too slow to react to the masses of content. The scandals at the tech giant seem to be mounting to an ever-growing pile of damning evidence, and adding to the mistrust of the company and how it uses people’s information, images, and
monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony.” This law founded the basis that anything deemed anticompetitive was illegal and the creation of monopolies was prohibited. Although being passed in 1890 it would take 20 years for the most consequential use of the
revealed by journalist Carrol Cadwalladr and Duncan Campbell. The company used the writings of their COO, Sheryl Sandberg, on feminism to pressure female EU officials that the company considered ‘hostile’ to its ambitions and threatened to hold back funding for projects unless the country agreed to support the company. The company leveraged what its own documents called a “great relationship” with Enda Kennedy and used
Ireland’s role in the EU as data commissioner to the European Union to loosen regulation. Facebook also sort to leverage a future Irish EU presidency as an “opportunity to influence the European Data Directive decisions”. The documents seen by the Guardian also detailed how the company sought to use the promise of data centres, jobs, and economic growth as a means of passing their policy agenda. The scale of the company allowed it to economically strong-arm ministers into backing Facebook’s agenda, similarly to how Amazon’s push for a new HQ and the promise of thousands of jobs led US cities to offer massive tax breaks and incentives to the firm. However, in this instance, it wasn’t tax breaks they wanted, but rather looser rules on what and how Facebook can do with your data. This staggering lobbying operation can only be matched by the huge scale of Standards Oil efforts to affect American politics in the early
designed to prevent the stifling of trade and the flow of commerce by monopolies. In its original wording the law stated: “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.” “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to
law to take place. When in 1911, the supreme court of the United States heard the case of Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States. In the years preceding this ruling Standard Oil had grown to an incomprehensible scale. Controlling 88% of the American oil industry, vast swathes of the railways, and even entire forests dedicated to the production of barrels to put the oil in. Rockefeller wanted Standard Oil to have the ultimate say over its prices, and this meant controlling
The evolution of Standard Oil:
everything. Standard Oil got cheaper prices on transportation as it shipped more oil than anyone else. This allowed it to undercut the competition and reduce prices. Which in turn made more people buy it. In the markets, Standard Oil entered they would engage in price wars crippling opposing business into submission. Then when the opposition was gone, Standard Oil had consumer support for low prices and absolute control of the industry. In the early 20th Century standard oil and other monopolies had bought and paid for large swathes of Congress, like Facebook, to maintain its dominance over the industry it had come to own. Later in Standard Oil’s break up the companies that superseded it oversaw the systematic deconstruction of America’s mass
transportation industry to maintain the nation’s reliance on the oil industry. A consortium of business involved in the Oil and Car industry purchased the mass transportation networks of 45 cities from coast to coast of the US including Detroit, New York City, Oakland, Baltimore,
▷
Zuckerberg is worth $69 billion
Chicago, and Los Angeles. This effort began in 1936 and continued for two decades after. The effects of this are still shown today, mostly in LA a city that is crippled by traffic but used to have a perfectly good mass transit system. Trolley systems were so widely used before there systematic annihilation at the hands of big oil they even gave their name to the LA Dodgers, which originally meant ‘trolley dodgers’, after how people would have to jump out the way of trams. At the time, the shady consortium got away with it, Facebook’s grapple on the worlds data cannot be allowed to go unchecked like the vast mechanisms of Standard Oil did for so
long. The 20th centuries biggest commodity was Oil, now we exist in an age where the most powerful commodity is data. Facebooks business model mirrors the sprawling acquisitions of Standard Oil, the chair of the Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport select committee described the company’s ruthless practices: “Facebook’s business model to date is based on a blatant disregard for people’s personal data and privacy and ruthlessly crushing other competitor apps” Facebook is the king of this industry, and
How to cut-out Facebook
H
as all the above got to you? Well this handy guide can help. Here will show you everything you need to when it comes to deactivating or deleting your account, and explain what happens to your data when you do. Deciding between deleting and deactivating is the first decision you need to make. If you aren’t 100% convinced on leaving the platform deactivation will make your timeline disappear, stop anyone from contacting you and cut any connections to any apps that may be associated with your account. To deactivate your account, you need to head to the ‘Manage Account’ section within the settings of the site and there at the bottom of the page will be a button to deactivate your account. Deleting your account is simple, you can follow similar steps or head to ‘facebook. com/help/delete_account’. Not too difficult, and a bold first step in cutting yourself out from the world of Facebook. The interesting thing here is you may delete your account but the public record
of yourself on Facebook is not gone. Any comments you’ve posted on public pages or your friends posts will remain. Facebook also will keep a copy of your data for as long as 90 days’ post deleting your account. However, the company do also keep the option for you to come crawling back if you feel you’ve made a mistake. If you change your mind within 30 days your whole account with everything you ever posted can be recovered.
Senator Elizabeth Warren
with its growing influence on politics, communication and people’s lives. Now is not the time for tit-for-tat regulation. The EU has long been a bulwark of data protection but it alone can only do so much. Now is time for politicians to put aside the immediate bonus of jobs and economic growth in favour of long-term safeguarding of the people. The past made its mistakes in letting the dismantling of the US mass transportation systems go unchecked but the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was a bold, decisive play to safeguard people over power and money. The dismantling of Standard Oil by the supreme court should be a lesson in how to control what is seemingly uncontrollable. Facebook’s grapple on the world of data must be reined in before it can grow any further. Free market capitalists may decry the notion of government meddling in the affairs of a company, but Facebook like the oil juggernauts before it is not simply business. A company with such outreach and influence on a market in many ways stifles anything that may come up against it. As former Chancellor George Osborne in the Spectator: “Putting power in the hands of consumers rather than producers and breaking up monopolies is progressive conservative thinking.” In the 1900s the monopoly of Standard Oil could only come to exist because of the market’s hunger for their product. A market where everything was increasingly dependent on Oil created the necessity for a constant, sustainable and cost-effective flow of black gold. Oil was the backbone of manifest destiny and the American economy powering the nation in the 20th century. This unique need for a product created an environment for Standard Oil to dominate. With the onset of the internet in the 21st century
and the diversification of oil sources across the globe, a new commodity emerged and has come to be the most important thing in the modern economy. Data is the most powerful, intangible thing to ever exist. The sheer volume of data around and its application in every industry has made control and access to it more important. Facebook’s access to immense pools of data has led to its domination. The enticement of connectivity and interaction lead the world down the garden path of giving up data in return for the most comprehensive, widereaching communication platform to ever exist. Although users here and there can leave the platform, a couple of million users leaving the service barely scratches the surface of the monopoly. The problem is laid bare by a key early figure with Sean Parker revealing he considers himself to be “something of a conscientious objector” to the company. Facebook and its connections and networks with other companies has given it to have access to data on people who are not even on the service. Congressional hearings on the company revealed the existence of ‘shadow-profiles’ which are essentially profiles of people who aren’t on the site. The extent of its web also means that after you leave the page, through cookies and ad’s Facebook can track your usage of the net to continue to build up its picture of you
announcing a plan to break up the internet monopolies of the likes of Facebook, Google and Amazon. The measure drew bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle with Republican Senator Josh Hawley asking the Guardian: “Is there really any wonder that there
Every other market has some form of regulation: what Americans eat is overseen by the Food Standards Agency is increased pressure for antitrust enforcement activity, for privacy activity when these companies behave in the way that they do?”. The rulers of the information age are much like those of the past. Zuckerberg is a modern Rockefeller, Bezos the 21st centuries Vanderbilt. Their control of modern innovations and data has led them to a position where to quote Cole Porter: “Anything goes”. If Sam Goldwyn could with great conviction Instruct Anna Sten in diction then Government can step up and use its power to dissolve this data dominance. The legislation pushed by Elizabeth Warren would dismantle what she refers to as “anti-competitive” mergers like Facebook’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp which in effect were competition before becoming part of the monopoly. Warren countered critics of her plan: ‘You’re
The most important thing in the modern economy, data is both powerful, yet intangible as a user. The scale of the companies reach makes disentangling it difficult. To begin breaking up Facebook would need to review not only the social networks internal connections but also those it has with external businesses. This March democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren vowed to do just that,
Once the brands are spun off, laws need to be put in place to prevent them simply springing back up. Once broken up we as a people cannot trust Facebook to hold up its hands, admit it’s mistakes and not do it again. Like a child with bad handwriting,
trying to regulate the web. Wooooh!’ As opposed to saying, these are actually big media companies and your information is a commodity. That’s what this is.” For a plan like this to work, this distinction is paramount, regulation and the breaking of Facebook as a monopoly need to go hand in hand.
you can’t just give it a pen, it needs to earn its pen license. Facebook’s business is data. It’s consumption, its use, it’s everything. To trust the company not to turn around and go after more would not work. This is where regulation comes in. Some have argued for a BBC like approach to Social Media, putting an ethos on the giants of the company to ‘Inform, educate and entertain’. Although a loose requirement it could and should put the ethos on networks not to just harbour echo-chambers and friend’s groups, but inspire communication and discourse. Anne Applebaum in the Washington Post described this idea as not necessary for ourselves as individuals but also for the survival of democracy. Almost every other market has some form of regulation, The Food Standard’s agency makes sure everyone doesn’t get salmonella. The Financial Conduct Authority ensures the integrity of our financial systems. Commercial banking has been ringfenced to protect people’s savings from corporate failings. Although the everchanging face of the age of the microchip will make keeping pace a challenge, it is a challenge legislators must take up to protect the people. The EU’s Frans Timmermans outlined the future of this
regulation with the need for cooperation between big-tech and government: “The first task of any public authority is to protect its citizens - and if we see you (tech giants) as a threat to our citizens, we will regulate and if you don’t work with us, we will probably regulate badly.” Imagine a world in which you log into Facebook and see a diverse range of opinions and genuine discussion. With regulation and anti-trust acts, Facebook can transition from the bogeyman of the internet to a truly 21st century Public Sphere. With bold steps taken from the playbook of the past, a chance is here to democratise and take ownership of our data. Rein in the monopoly of Facebook and others on our lives. Now is the chance to take it, before Facebook derails the streetcar of global communication, and makes us rely on it forever.
Amazon’s Jeff Bezos like Zuckerberg has been attacked for his companies practices