HOW AND WHY FACEBOOK FUNCTIONS LIKE - AND SHOULD BE REGULATED AS - A UTILITY
Recently Facebook has drawn a great deal of scrutiny for what they do with the information that USERS put on the platform. I would say put "online" ... but there are differences between posting to Facebook and posting "online" like this blog. It is these differences that make Facebook functionally equivalent to a Utility in some areas, and as a Public Square in others. Thus, Facebook should be REGULATED as a Utility in some areas, and like the Public Square in others.
The dividing line between the two areas is the SCOPE of posts by Users - they can choose to post only to Friends, to a Group, to a Page, or to the Public. In the first two categories, Facebook resembles a telecommunications service - a telephone line or conference call - and in the latter two it resembles a Public Square where people choose to speak.
Taking the first case, posting to a specific, identified group of Users: Is the information posted by a User intended to reach Facebook, the company, for use in any way the company sees fit? Or is it intended to reach the set individuals in the User's Friends list or in the Group to which they post, not the company ... which is "eavesdropping" on the posts?
To draw an analogy, imagine the following call to the telephone company, 50 years ago, in 1968:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Hello, I'd like to order a new telephone line for my home."
"Great! We have service in your area, and can get you a line next week."
"OK, thanks. Please send the bill to my new home address."
"No problem. I have to inform you, under our terms of service we will have operators listening to all your calls, so we can inform marketers what you're discussing, and they'll be sending you advertisements based on the things you like, or talk about on the phone."
"What...!!!? That's crazy! When I talk to my friends, my family, I don't think I want you listening to what I'm saying and selling my personal preferences to whoever you want...!"
"Well ... then don't get a telephone."
"But everyone else has a telephone and I want to be able to talk to them."
"Well ... then get a line. But we're going to be listening, that's how we make money."
"You don't understand, I want a telephone line where the things I say are heard by the people I intend to speak to ... not your company. If I want you guys listening to my calls, I'll add you on a conference."
"Sorry, that's not the way it works. If you don't like it, then use a walkie-talkie or something."
"But, but, but.... But none of my friends have walkie-talkies...!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Hello, I'd like to order a new telephone line for my home."
"Great! We have service in your area, and can get you a line next week."
"OK, thanks. Please send the bill to my new home address."
"No problem. I have to inform you, under our terms of service we will have operators listening to all your calls, so we can inform marketers what you're discussing, and they'll be sending you advertisements based on the things you like, or talk about on the phone."
"What...!!!? That's crazy! When I talk to my friends, my family, I don't think I want you listening to what I'm saying and selling my personal preferences to whoever you want...!"
"Well ... then don't get a telephone."
"But everyone else has a telephone and I want to be able to talk to them."
"Well ... then get a line. But we're going to be listening, that's how we make money."
"You don't understand, I want a telephone line where the things I say are heard by the people I intend to speak to ... not your company. If I want you guys listening to my calls, I'll add you on a conference."
"Sorry, that's not the way it works. If you don't like it, then use a walkie-talkie or something."
"But, but, but.... But none of my friends have walkie-talkies...!"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OK ... I know, I know ... it's a rough analogy. OR IS IT...?
Maybe it's not so far off. Maybe it's even worse, and the operator just places your order and doesn't even inform you they'll be listening - though hey, sure, you can find that, of course ... on the back of your billing statements ... in 4 point italicized print.
Facebook created a PLATFORM so people could sign up and communicate with each other. THAT is the value to Users. That was the attraction that Mark Zuckerberg saw when he created the first versions in his dorm room. That is why so many people use it. But the platform costs money, and Facebook had to eventually figure out how to pay for it.
As a result, as you may have heard, YOU became ... "THE PRODUCT."
YOUR information, YOUR preferences, YOUR opinions - not shared with Zuck, or the company ... shared with your Friends (or a Group). So why is is "ok" for Facebook to "listen in" to these communications and sell the information you post to marketers? How is this not like the phone company listening in to your calls...? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE...???
I know ... "it's free." But is that difference a distinction? Would the "free service in return for listening in" model jive with privacy laws in telephony? More to the point, is that even OFFERED by Facebook? Pay up, and we'll stop snooping.
No.
So on to the next objection: "Yeah, but Facebook is not a monopoly like Ma Bell was."
Seriously? Haven't we all heard of the "Network Effect" by now? This is the phenomenon where a service is only as useful as how many other users there are, so in true "Highlander" fashion "there can be only one." Anybody post anything for auction on a site other than eBay - another "network effect" monopoly - lately? Are ye daft, man...?
OK. So there's the case for regulating Facebook communications to Friends or Groups under the telecommunications laws that govern listening in to phone calls, or conference calls, no matter how many are on the call: It's a specific set of people chosen to hear the conversation, known to, and CHOSEN BY, the User.
Unless they "friend" the company or tag it in a post, what the heck is it doing listening in...?
And should the company even be allowed to listen in...?
Moving on then, let's take the case where a User posts to the Public, or puts up a Page. Here it's a bit different, in that there is no selection of who is listening, and the usual restrictions on PUBLIC Free Speech apply. But that just puts a different framework on the issue of what Facebook is doing in this segment of their platform.
When one stands up on a soapbox in the Public Square, they still have to obey certain rules. Generally speaking, they can't implore violence, incite a riot, promote terrorism, and so on. Nor can they strip down naked right there in public.
All of these have analogies to Facebook's restrictions on what is posted on their platform. Nudity and terrorism, I get it. But "offensive" speech...? "Harmful" opinions...? According to whom...? How is that THEIR job to decide...?
In a Public Square, isn't that the job of our police, working according to the LAW, and the job of our elected representatives to create those laws...? Answering to the People, and respecting Constitutional limits, of course. In other words, for the Public Square and Private Posts alike, isn't that the NSA's job to be snooping for terrorists...?
Who's watching the COMPANY'S Watchers? Facebook shareholders? Hardly.
To me, Facebook's platform looks like a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION here .. the Woolworth's Lunch Counter. Which of course brings up next the issue of DISCRIMINATION. The Woolworth's case dealt with a business selling lunch. But what is Facebook selling? ACCESS. Access to the universe of Facebook users who might hear one's messages.
Is it much, if any, different for Facebook to limit who hears a User's messages based on the COMPANY'S opinions than it would be for Woolworth's to have said "Blacks-Only on Tuesdays, because hey, WE think they like to stick together"...?
Who are they to offer a platform for people to communicate, sign everybody up, and then SCREEN who sees what, who is promoted and who is hidden ... or BANNED...? It's not "just" business when network effect has made them a monopoly.
"You? Umm ... you can speak down the hall, on the fire escape, over the alley ... but you CAN'T speak at the meeting in the big room where everybody is." In effect the ONLY room, and a PUBLIC Forum. Doesn't pass the smell test to me.
Don't get me wrong, I think Facebook is great TECHNOLOGY, but in my opinion the COMPANY - and the people in it - should not be allowed to operate a Public Forum any way they see fit. We've probably all read about banning based on THEIR political opinions by now, about Diamond & Silk, and so on. Civil Libertarians out there - is this right and proper, to treat as completely private the governance of a PLATFORM so pervasive it functions as a monopoly...?
I think not. And this is from the point of view of an ardent free-marketer, defender of property rights, and civil libertarian. It's clear the combination of (1) network effect, with (2) a bundled, "take it or leave it" user agreement - hey, it's only 57 pages ... just click "I accept" - have created a Witch's Brew of censorship and control issues here.
So for these reasons, I think the case is increasingly strong for regulating Facebook as a UTILITY - a monopolistic provider of a service, the Facebook Service, Private Communication and Public Forum. I'd like to see discussion among the many people more educated than I on these matters. I'd just like to get the discussions going in full.
My summary two cents, then:
(1) Shouldn't Facebook be restricted in it's gathering, use, and sale of User Information that's posted in private settings, to Friends and to Groups...? If they want to use this information, maybe they should have to ASK YOU, maybe you should have to "friend" the "Facebook Adbot" or something. At least it would be explicit. Heck, maybe you could even have the chance to say "I'll do that ...if you pay me." I mean, it's YOU they're selling.
(2) Shouldn't Facebook be restricted in the COMPANY INFLUENCE on rankings, "trending," featured or otherwise PUBLIC posts? By this I mean, should it be required that ONLY THE USERS DECIDE RANKINGS, BASED ON "LIKES" AND CLICKS? Facebook itself published studies that showed they could "shape" opinion based on WHAT THEY CHOSE TO SHOW OR REFUSE TO SHOW. In the Public Square, is this a wise idea, or even permissible in a democracy?
I mean, if there were two Public Squares in a town, two parks, but one was cordoned off for speakers with Company X controlling who came in, and they were offering FREE BEER (something useful, like the platform) ... where would LISTENERS gravitate...? And what to do if and when Company X started deciding WHO COULD SPEAK...?
Food for Thought.
Thanks for reading. I really am interested in the discussion. I really do hope there's a lot of participation and a whole lot of learned opinions. I will only curate for profanity, strictly ad hominem posts, etc - gotta live up to what I just preached. So please, share this site and maybe let's get some POLITICIANS involved. This is important.
Share it on Facebook, eh. LOL ....
Maybe it's not so far off. Maybe it's even worse, and the operator just places your order and doesn't even inform you they'll be listening - though hey, sure, you can find that, of course ... on the back of your billing statements ... in 4 point italicized print.
Facebook created a PLATFORM so people could sign up and communicate with each other. THAT is the value to Users. That was the attraction that Mark Zuckerberg saw when he created the first versions in his dorm room. That is why so many people use it. But the platform costs money, and Facebook had to eventually figure out how to pay for it.
As a result, as you may have heard, YOU became ... "THE PRODUCT."
YOUR information, YOUR preferences, YOUR opinions - not shared with Zuck, or the company ... shared with your Friends (or a Group). So why is is "ok" for Facebook to "listen in" to these communications and sell the information you post to marketers? How is this not like the phone company listening in to your calls...? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE...???
I know ... "it's free." But is that difference a distinction? Would the "free service in return for listening in" model jive with privacy laws in telephony? More to the point, is that even OFFERED by Facebook? Pay up, and we'll stop snooping.
No.
So on to the next objection: "Yeah, but Facebook is not a monopoly like Ma Bell was."
Seriously? Haven't we all heard of the "Network Effect" by now? This is the phenomenon where a service is only as useful as how many other users there are, so in true "Highlander" fashion "there can be only one." Anybody post anything for auction on a site other than eBay - another "network effect" monopoly - lately? Are ye daft, man...?
OK. So there's the case for regulating Facebook communications to Friends or Groups under the telecommunications laws that govern listening in to phone calls, or conference calls, no matter how many are on the call: It's a specific set of people chosen to hear the conversation, known to, and CHOSEN BY, the User.
Unless they "friend" the company or tag it in a post, what the heck is it doing listening in...?
And should the company even be allowed to listen in...?
Moving on then, let's take the case where a User posts to the Public, or puts up a Page. Here it's a bit different, in that there is no selection of who is listening, and the usual restrictions on PUBLIC Free Speech apply. But that just puts a different framework on the issue of what Facebook is doing in this segment of their platform.
When one stands up on a soapbox in the Public Square, they still have to obey certain rules. Generally speaking, they can't implore violence, incite a riot, promote terrorism, and so on. Nor can they strip down naked right there in public.
All of these have analogies to Facebook's restrictions on what is posted on their platform. Nudity and terrorism, I get it. But "offensive" speech...? "Harmful" opinions...? According to whom...? How is that THEIR job to decide...?
In a Public Square, isn't that the job of our police, working according to the LAW, and the job of our elected representatives to create those laws...? Answering to the People, and respecting Constitutional limits, of course. In other words, for the Public Square and Private Posts alike, isn't that the NSA's job to be snooping for terrorists...?
Who's watching the COMPANY'S Watchers? Facebook shareholders? Hardly.
To me, Facebook's platform looks like a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION here .. the Woolworth's Lunch Counter. Which of course brings up next the issue of DISCRIMINATION. The Woolworth's case dealt with a business selling lunch. But what is Facebook selling? ACCESS. Access to the universe of Facebook users who might hear one's messages.
Is it much, if any, different for Facebook to limit who hears a User's messages based on the COMPANY'S opinions than it would be for Woolworth's to have said "Blacks-Only on Tuesdays, because hey, WE think they like to stick together"...?
Who are they to offer a platform for people to communicate, sign everybody up, and then SCREEN who sees what, who is promoted and who is hidden ... or BANNED...? It's not "just" business when network effect has made them a monopoly.
"You? Umm ... you can speak down the hall, on the fire escape, over the alley ... but you CAN'T speak at the meeting in the big room where everybody is." In effect the ONLY room, and a PUBLIC Forum. Doesn't pass the smell test to me.
Don't get me wrong, I think Facebook is great TECHNOLOGY, but in my opinion the COMPANY - and the people in it - should not be allowed to operate a Public Forum any way they see fit. We've probably all read about banning based on THEIR political opinions by now, about Diamond & Silk, and so on. Civil Libertarians out there - is this right and proper, to treat as completely private the governance of a PLATFORM so pervasive it functions as a monopoly...?
I think not. And this is from the point of view of an ardent free-marketer, defender of property rights, and civil libertarian. It's clear the combination of (1) network effect, with (2) a bundled, "take it or leave it" user agreement - hey, it's only 57 pages ... just click "I accept" - have created a Witch's Brew of censorship and control issues here.
So for these reasons, I think the case is increasingly strong for regulating Facebook as a UTILITY - a monopolistic provider of a service, the Facebook Service, Private Communication and Public Forum. I'd like to see discussion among the many people more educated than I on these matters. I'd just like to get the discussions going in full.
My summary two cents, then:
(1) Shouldn't Facebook be restricted in it's gathering, use, and sale of User Information that's posted in private settings, to Friends and to Groups...? If they want to use this information, maybe they should have to ASK YOU, maybe you should have to "friend" the "Facebook Adbot" or something. At least it would be explicit. Heck, maybe you could even have the chance to say "I'll do that ...if you pay me." I mean, it's YOU they're selling.
(2) Shouldn't Facebook be restricted in the COMPANY INFLUENCE on rankings, "trending," featured or otherwise PUBLIC posts? By this I mean, should it be required that ONLY THE USERS DECIDE RANKINGS, BASED ON "LIKES" AND CLICKS? Facebook itself published studies that showed they could "shape" opinion based on WHAT THEY CHOSE TO SHOW OR REFUSE TO SHOW. In the Public Square, is this a wise idea, or even permissible in a democracy?
I mean, if there were two Public Squares in a town, two parks, but one was cordoned off for speakers with Company X controlling who came in, and they were offering FREE BEER (something useful, like the platform) ... where would LISTENERS gravitate...? And what to do if and when Company X started deciding WHO COULD SPEAK...?
Food for Thought.
Thanks for reading. I really am interested in the discussion. I really do hope there's a lot of participation and a whole lot of learned opinions. I will only curate for profanity, strictly ad hominem posts, etc - gotta live up to what I just preached. So please, share this site and maybe let's get some POLITICIANS involved. This is important.
Share it on Facebook, eh. LOL ....
Comments
Post a Comment