Essay - User Exploitation in the ‘Digital Era’ PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Essay - User Exploitation in the ‘Digital Era’ PDF

Description

User Exploitation in the ‘Digital Era’ A Discussion of Privacy Issues surrounding Web 2.0 and Social Networking Sites

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................ Page 2

2.0 Privacy.....................................................................................................................................Page 2 2.2 Web 2.0 and Social Networking Sites.........................................................................Page 2-3 2.1 Internet Surveillance....................................................................................................Page 3-4

3.0 User-Generated Value........................................................................................................... Page 4 3.1 Free Labour................................................................................................................. Page 4-5 3.2 A Free Product? ............................................................................................................ Page 5

4.0 Data Mining........................................................................................................................ Page 5-6 4.1 Advertising................................................................................................................. Page 6-7

5.0 Ownership........................................................................................................................... Page 8-9 5.1 Terms & Conditions................................................................................................. Page 9-10 5.2 Alternative Social Networks........................................................................................ Page 10

6.0 Conclusion............................................................................................................................ Page 11

References............................................................................................................................. Page 12-15

Page 1 of 15

1.0 Introduction With advances in technology changing the way we communicate, Web 2.0 and social networking sites are attracting millions of users. Users are able to share audiovisual content in public, write online diaries, co-create knowledge with others, stay in contact with friends and acquaintances, and share messages online (Loeffler 2012; Fuchs et al. 2012). For some users, it has become a way of life. Web 2.0 sites are becoming increasingly aware of the value of user information, from information that users intentionally share on the site, to more exploitative information collected for marketing purposes. In recent years, regulators, reporters and privacy advocates have given privacy policies in the online environment a considerable amount of attention, and have raised public concern regarding privacy and ethical issues. Privacy concerns specific to online social networking include, damaged reputation, inadvertent disclosure of personal information, unwanted contact and harassment, hacking and identity theft, and use of personal data by third-parties (Boyd and Ellison 2008). Due to the growing popularity of user-generated content, and the increasing concern over user privacy, this paper will go on to discuss the privacy issues surrounding Web 2.0 and social networking sites, and the consequences of this exploitation. This report defines the terms “Web 2.0” and “social networking sites”, and considers the privacy issues surrounding Internet surveillance and data mining. The concept of free labour will be explored, along with debates surrounding content ownership.

2.0 Privacy Broadly speaking, privacy is the right to have freedom from interference or intrusion. Looking more specifically at content privacy, it is the right to have some control over how personal information is collected and used (Fuchs et al. 2012). Platforms that allow user content to be distributed are on the rise (Mabillot 2007), with originally private content now being made public for profit (Deuze 2008). Technology is developing at a rapid rate, enhancing Web 2.0 and social networking sites ability to collect and analyse vast amounts of information, resulting in a significant threat to user privacy.

2.1 Web 2.0 and Social Networking Sites It is argued that in recent years, the Internet has experienced a dramatic transformation into a system that is heavily focused on communication, sharing, and community building (Fuchs et al. 2012). Web 2.0 and social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, Google, Twitter and LinkedIn have played a key part in the transformation. Web 2.0 and social media platforms are defined as web based

Page 2 of 15

platforms that are based on the creation and sharing of user-generated content (Fuchs et al. 2012). There are a variety of social networks that enable users to share videos, images and blogs. Sites such as Facebook and Twitter essentially benefit from the cultural labour of the masses by converting content into monetary value (Zwick et al. 2008). Since its formation in 2004, Facebook has attracted millions of users, allowing users to add friends, communicate with people around the world, and share valuable content (Cohen 2008; Piirsalua 2013). Social media sharing sites such as Instagram and Flickr are more specialised services, allowing ‘creators’ to post images they have created themselves and giving ‘curators’ a space to share images and videos others have posted online (Piirsalua 2013). It is important to note that the terms “Web 2.0” and “social networks” do not indicate a dramatic transformation of the Internet, rather the development of specialised social platforms supported by the World Wide Web, becoming more significant (Fuchs 2010).

2.2 Internet Surveillance Marx (2002, p.1) defines new surveillance as “the use of technical means to extract or create personal data. This may be taken from individuals or contexts”. This new form of surveillance is far more advanced than traditional surveillance, where the surveillant was only able to access information that the subject was more likely already aware of (Marx 2002). It is now possible for the surveillant to identify things that the subject is not aware of (Fuchs et al. 2012). Surveillance systems are able to obtain individual and group data, in order to classify individuals into groups, based on varying criterias (Lyon 2003). This allows advertisers to determine which users should be targeted (Lyon 2003). Fuchs et al. (2012) and Marx (1988) highlight the importance of computerised surveillance, arguing that computers are able to qualitatively modify the nature of surveillance, effectively deepening and broadening it. Dataveillance is defined as the “systematic monitoring of people’s actions or communications through the application of information technology” (Clarke 1988). There are two types of dataveillance: personal dataveillance and mass dataveillance. Personal dataveillance observes the actions of one or more persons, whilst mass dataveillance monitors a larger population, in order to identify relevant individuals. It is argued that computers are a technology that effectively stimulates surveillance (Bogard 2006). Andrejevik (2004; 2007) has coined the theory of digital enclosure, where interactive technologies produce transaction feedback, which then becomes the property of private organisations. From this, it is clear that Facebook profit through the valorisation of surveillance (Cohen 2008). Networking and digitalisation have effectively changed surveillance; file sizes have increased, and it is now simpler and easier to trace individuals and groups, because

Page 3 of 15

databases are more dispersed and easily accessed by central institutions (Lyon 1994). Not only this, but the speed of data flow has increased, and consumers are increasingly exposed to constant and invasive monitoring (Lyon 1994). This poses the question, is mass storage of personal data that is systematically being studied, marketed and used for targeted advertising unethical and invasive? Online advertising is seen as a mechanism adopted by organisations to exploit Web 2.0 users who participate in a prosumer commodity, where user-generated content becomes the product being sold (Fuchs 2011; Fuchs 2010; Andrejevic 2002). Essentially, it is argued that Web 2.0 is centered on the exploitation of free labour (Terranova 2004).

3.0 User-Generated Value Users are willing to continue using social networking sites because of the perceived ‘use value’ (Marx 2002; Fuchs et al. 2012; Strinati 2002). This term is defined by Strinati (2002, p.57) as “the usefulness of the good to the consumer its practical value or utility as a commodity”. It is clear that the use value of sharing information and images online is very much social, focused on building and maintaining relationships with others, and expressing personal views (Van House 2011; Nov et al. 2009). These sites offer a place for users to build a community and express themselves, effectively creating a new creative autonomy (Jenkins 2008). However it’s argued that online activities such as sharing images and personal content are not participatory, due to the lack of democratic equality (Fuchs 2014). Moreover, Internet platforms are only participatory if participatory ownership structures are put in place, with the private ownership of Web 2.0 and social networking sites being indicative of an exploitative capitalist economy. While use value can be seen to offer audience empowerment, under capitalist ideology, exchange value dominates that of use value (Marx 1963).

3.1 Free Labour Mass media generates profits through selling user data to advertisers, resulting in audience power (Smythe 2001). This is what is known as free labour (Fuchs 2014). The audience essentially ‘works’ by desiring a product or service, which in turn generates demand and consumption of mass-marketed products and services (Smythe 2001; Fuchs 2014). Users are willing to give up personal information in order to join Web 2.0 and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter. This theory was constructed with a range of audiences in mind, and is considered too broad by some, however it was formed after the consumer began creating content, so it therefore retains validity (Cohen 2008; Fuchs 2014; Smythe 2001).

Page 4 of 15

The Facebook network is based on free labour; essentially user-generated content (Cohen 2008). Web 2.0 and social networking sites rely solely on users participating in communicative activity, and the sharing of information (Terranova 2004; Fuchs 2014). Consumers become ‘creators’, who fulfill a crucial role for the organisation. Without the ‘prosumer’, networking sites would cease to exist (Lister et al. 2003). Consumers are not paid for their enthusiasm and cooperation; instead they are required to pay what is called ‘price premium’ for their own labour (Zwich et al. 2008). In summary, Web 2.0 and social networking sites are able to make a profit from the free labour that ‘prosumers’ participate in when updating their personal profile and micro-log of day-to-day activities (Coté and Pybus 2007). There is a significant lack of monetary exchanges taking place between users and social networking sites, although users are generating millions of pounds worth of information (Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010).

3.2 A Free Product? It is clear that Web 2.0 and social networking users are now communicating with an ‘audience’ bigger than they realise. The question arises; are we really getting anything for free? Terranova (2004, p.37) argues, “knowledgeable consumption of culture is translated into excess productive activities that are pleasurably embraced and at the same time often shamelessly exploited”. If a customer pays money for a product, they will receive the product, however if a customer doesn’t pay money for a product, they then become the product. The users words, images and actions become the product being sold (Toffler 1980; Terranova 2004).

4.0 Data Mining Web 2.0 and social networking sites are being increasingly utilised by the public (see Figure 1). Figure 1

Source: We Are Social Page 5 of 15

These networks are based on the sharing of information and media, and a vast amount of user data giving insight into users every day lives is being collected, analysed, and disseminated. One of the reasons companies collect this data is to personalise the service for the user, through posting advertisements based on the users previous searches and likes (Piirsalu 2013). The more relevant reason in reference to privacy issues, is to sell this data onto advertisers for a profit (Piirsalu 2013). Web 2.0 and social networking sites offer a place where users can freely publish detailed personal information and give insights into their daily routines and preferences. Research has shown that teenagers may be more at risk of an invasion of privacy, because they freely post personal information to sites, unaware of the public nature of the Internet (Cohen 2008). This suggests that invasions of user privacy have particular implications for this age range. For advertisers, this is extremely valuable in understanding how to successfully target consumers with marketing messages, and they are willing to pay the price to have access to this data. The management, sorting, and mining of vast amounts of user information presents significant privacy concerns. This type of data collection is called “predictive analytics” and is used to predict what consumers will want as well as their future actions (Ayres 2007). Prediction is seen as the “datafuelled fantasy” of interactive marketing, and is present in various types of analysis, including “cluster analysis”, “collaborative filtering”, and “sentiment analysis” (Fuchs et al. 2012). These methods all share the same reliance on the capture of enormous amounts of comprehensive data about people, products, and their various characteristics. Subsequently, there is an increasing amount of academic literature on the concerns surrounding commercial surveillance (Rosen 2000; Solove 2006; Gandy 2006; Lyon 2007; Andrejevic 2007; Fuchs et al. 2012).

4.1 Advertising The below table adapted from Mintel (2013) shows the highest-ranking Web 2.0 and social networking sites in terms of total revenue. A significant amount of revenue is achieved through selling advertising space to organisations and passing on audience information to advertisers (Napoli 2011; Mintel 2013).

Page 6 of 15

Figure 2 Company

Users (monthly active users)

Total Revenue ($)

Type

Facebook

1 billion

7,872 million

Social

Twitter

284 million

664 million

Social

LinkedIn

218 million

1,528 million

Social/ Business

Instagram

150 million

iMDB

100 million

Pinterest

48.7 million

2 million

Social/ Multi-Media Social/ Multi-Media

-

Social/ Media

Facebook was ranked second on the list of the 10 most accessed and popular websites in the world (Fuchs et al. 2012). It is a clear leader with the highest number of users, and generating over $7,800 million in revenue (Mintel 2013). This is achieved through selling vast amounts of user information to advertisers for a profit. Facebook users are directly targeted based on the information provided in their personal profiles, such as: age, education, location, relationship status and interests including favourite movies and music preferences. This comprehensive and exploitative data collected on each user is made available to advertisers, enabling companies to reach the right audience with their advertisements. In fact, advertisers are able to set targeting filters to select which groups of people they will target. However, the reactance theory suggests that increasing relational communication has a negative influence on repurchase actions, because customers perceive the communication as invasive or obtrusive (Hennig-Thurau et al. 2010). It is interesting to note that despite a high number of active users in 2013, both Instagram and Pinterest had been failing to generate revenue (Mintel 2013). The two sites are expected to dramatically increase revenue after Instagram was bought by Facebook back in 2012, and in the last year, began offering advertising space in order to generate a profit. Similarly, Pinterest recently introduced an advertising scheme that allows companies to promote pins (Pinterest 2014). The notion that advertising will become more effective with the ability to effectively predict human behaviour and thereby manage consumer groups in accordance with commercial objectives, presents further issues than privacy alone. Consumers are put to ‘work’ marketing to themselves and effectively generate bespoke products, for which they are required to pay premium prices. Zwick et al. (2008) supports this notion stating, “consumers are asked to pay for the surplus extracted from their own work”. Furthermore, concerns regarding power and control come into play.

Page 7 of 15

5.0 Ownership Web 2.0 essentially brings about “a new economic democracy... in which we all have a lead role” (Tapscott and Williams 2002). Users are now able to enjoy mass self-communication, where individuals have the ability to create their own network of mass self-communication, effectively empowering themselves (Castells 2009). One should however bear in mind that through using privately owned networking sites to upload this personal content, a number of significant ownership issues come into play. Any information or media posted on social networking sites is no longer owned by the user, instead, it is solely owned by the social network in which it was posted (Aware and Obama 2009). Shockingly, there have been numerous cases where users have uploaded personal images onto social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, and later found that it had been sold to advertisers, and published without the owners knowledge or consent (BBC 2012).

“By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).” (Twitter 2014).

By default, multimedia posted on Instagram and Flickr are public for anyone to access. These networks base their entire business offering on the creation and sharing of images and videos, arguing what is the value of something, if it isn’t shared? Following suit, Facebook, which once upheld its model of private sharing amongst close friends and family, is now encouraging users to publicly share their profile. In recent years, privacy issues have become more of a concern as technology has continued to grow at an exponential rate (Rosen 2000; Solove 2006; Gandy 2006; Lyon 2007; Andrejevic 2007; Fuchs 2012). While audiences are able to access networking sites through computers and laptops, smartphones now have the capacity to upload multi-media files at the click of a button, posing an entirely new privacy issue. Multi-media posts are especially concerning as they reveal a lot more about a users personal and social environment than a word-based post (Eckles et al. 2007). Greater participation in photo creation and sharing, gives social platforms greater access to audience information (Napoli 2011; Eckles et al. 2007). The majority of users are unaware of the risks when sharing personal images and information online. According to a study conducted by Das and Sahoo (2011), the decision to share something online is “made in the moment” and the future impli...