Well-known media theorist, Douglas Rushkoff, wrote a post on his blog at CNN in which he explains why he’s giving up on Facebook after mounting frustrations with it over the years:
Through a new variation of the Sponsored Stories feature called Related Posts, users who “like” something can be unwittingly associated with pretty much anything an advertiser pays for. Like e-mail spam with a spoofed identity, the Related Post shows up in a newsfeed right under the user’s name and picture. If you like me, you can be shown implicitly recommending me or something I like — something you’ve never heard of — to others without your consent.
For now, as long as I don’t like anything myself, I have some measure of control over what those who follow me receive in my name or, worse, are made to appear to be endorsing, themselves. But I feel that control slipping away, and cannot remain part of a system where liking me or my work can be used against you.
Chapter 2 in The Filter Bubble is entitled “The User Is the Content.” What do you think Pariser would make of Rushkoff’s concerns?
Sources
Ruskhof, Douglas. “About.” Rushkoff. N.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2013.
Rushkoff, Douglas. “Why I’m Quitting Facebook.” CNN. CNN, 25 Feb. 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2013.
I think Rushkoff completely makes sense. And I think Eli Pariser will agree with me on this one.
Pariser talks in the 2nd chapter of The Filter Bubble, how back in the days the traditional gatekeepers, despite being many, were at least conspicuous. But with time and the rapid development of technology, we have seen the disintermediation of these barriers, and have given ourselves a pat in the back for the achievement. However not visible to our naked eyes, we have been deceived by even more sophisticated, state of art barriers- the invisible gatekeepers that personalize our information for us, without our knowledge.
Rushkoff explains a similar scenario; facebook meddling with things behind our back without our permission. And only later when everything is done and over, do we find out about it. The personalizing signals that facebook uses to detect us are very sophisticated barriers that are not visible to us. We do not see them, and therefore think they do not exist, which is sadly untrue. Unfortunately even being inactive on facebook does not allow us to escape from it. And thus causing Rushkoff and many other people to delete their facebook accounts, but the damage may have already been done, as facebook will still save all our information despite us deleting our accounts.
I think that Pariser would find Rushkoff’s concerns 100% legitimate. The users of Facebook are definitely the content, and Facebook is keen on capitalizing on that. The biggest concern about Facebook when they had their IPO was how they would improve their manner on capitalizing on their huge network of data and user’s. These secret recommendations are just a new way that Facebook is working to bring in revenue.
I think the outrage of Facebook doing things like this comes from the serious manner that social networks are being used for today. Many people use Facebook for political and business reasons. For Facebook to be user friendly, the users have to be using it as something less serious. If we use Facebook to post pictures of our pets, reconnect with an old friend from high school, or chat about a great old movie, then how bad are the consequences that can come from Facebook mining our data? No consequences can come from people seeing that you liked “The Avengers.” The problem is, if you post a status about a heated government issue, or something otherwise controversial, then there are serious consequences if Facebook associates that with you to other people behind your back.