Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The given rhetorical analysis will primarily focus on three articles on the topic of how Facebook’s use of security information and the privacy of its user by cooperating with Cambridge Analytica. The scandal was one of the major events, which illustrated the underlying dangers of user data used to influence the masses through global and nation-scale data analysis. The case is important because it shows that users’ private information can be utilized to make major influences on politics and social issues, and thus, it makes societies vulnerable to mass-scale manipulation strategies. The given rhetorical analysis will primarily focus on the structure, narrative, evidence usage, and argumentation within these articles. I will analyze these sources in terms of the main findings, evidence, claims, approaches to the issue at hand, and data utilization.
The first article is “The Cambridge Analytica affair and Internet‐mediated research” by Schnneble et al. (2018), where the authors illuminate the intrinsic issues in regards to data collection and analysis guidelines, which are almost non-existent in top American and European universities. The source proves its claim by using primary sources of their surveys as well as other authors’ assessment data. It also focuses that the current framework in this field poorly focuses on Internet-mediated research, where consulting firms, such as Cambridge Analytica, are eager to gather data on the users without their consent, which means that the invasion of their privacy takes place. The second article is “API-Based Research” or How Can Digital Sociology, and Journalism Studies Learn from the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Data Breach” by Venturini and Rogers (2019), which addresses the effects of the Cambridge Analytica scandal on the current research methodologies, where the latter involve data collection through application programming interfaces or APIs. The main emphasis is put on how the scandal revealed the importance of data security and privacy as the key concerns regarding the data breach, where users are unaware of their data being used (Venturini and Rogers 532). Such a paradigm shift can result in researchers being able to find more plausible means to collect and analyze data without user privacy violations. The source proves its claims by referring to other authors’ data. The third article is “Cambridge Analytica’s black box” by Hu (2020), where the author exposes and summarizes the role of the Federal Trade Commission FTC in regulating data breaches and security information utilization by Cambridge Analytica, where voters are targeted to influence the political dynamics through algorithms. The source proves its claim by referring to other researchers’ findings. The fourth source is a legal document called the “Federal Trade Commission Act” by FTC (2006), which specifies the key aspects in regards to “deceptive trade practices.” The law states that the FTC can take action against companies, such as Facebook, if they engage in misleading advertising practices, violate consumer privacy rights, do not provide security of user data, falsify security representations, inappropriately transfer personal data, do not follow privacy policies, do not abide the applicable principles, and do not integrate data security measures (FTC, 2006). The source does not use any form of data since it is a legal document. Therefore, both Cambridge Analytica and Facebook broke the law by not providing user data security, violating privacy rights, and inappropriately transferring personal data for the uses of Cambridge Analytica. The fifth article is “User Data Privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and Privacy Protection” by Isaak & Hanna (2018), where the authors thoroughly investigate the case of Facebook and Cambridge Analytica by proposing solutions and analyzing the current proposals. It is stated the current proposed legislation states that users will need to provide “explicit opt-in consent” before Facebook and similar platforms will be able to sell or capitalize on their data (Isaak & Hanna, 2018). The article primarily uses other authors’ claims and data to state their main point.
The given rhetorical analysis will primarily focus on the structure, narrative, evidence usage, and argumentation within these articles. It is important to point out that the approaches used by the articles are different, and the focus of the content is made on different areas. However, there are core similarities between articles, such as Schnneble et al. (2018) and Venturini and Rogers (2019), where the authors address how the current research trends do not explore and accentuate enough the topics of internet-mediated research and APIs. Although they cover different aspects of research methods and focus, the main ideas are that data collection, and privacy invasion is highly interconnected, which is why it is critical for the experts to develop new approaches for using and collecting data for analysis (Schnneble et al. 1; Isaak & Hanna, 2018). In other words, the issue is relevant since more in-depth research on APIs and internet-mediated research will reveal new ways of conducting studies without user privacy invasions. The Cambridge Analytica scandal was a clear example of how the conventional methods have failed to set constraints as well as determine the guideline, and thus, the narrative focuses on solving the problem from the perspective of methodologies, which are manifested in the fact user data can be sold and exchanged without awareness of the users. In the case of Hu (2020), the primary emphasis is put on FTC’s role in regulating consulting firms, such as Cambridge Analytica and Facebook user data sharing. It is important to note that such regulatory agencies and organizations are not prepared to deal with user data privacy violations, which is why data collectors, such as Facebook, and data analytics, such as Cambridge Analytica, need to be controlled and restrained in their operations (Hu 2). If FTC does not regulate them, special agencies need to be developed to protect citizens from such practices. In addition, Facebook paid a $5 billion fine to FTC and made sure that all of the legal points are followed, which requires a major adjustment in the company’s infrastructure and practices (Isaak & Hanna, 2018). However, all four articles point out that solutions for future user data privacy invasion prevention need to originate from both methodologies of data analysis and data collection.
The first article by Schnneble et al. (2018) constructs the key arguments by providing a thorough analysis of the case of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. It is followed by a reference to their primary research data from a survey, which they use to state that there is no clear guideline in regards to data science, research, and analysis. Subsequently, the research field on user data is fairly underdeveloped, which is why there are no direct legislations in regards to user privacy protection. Each paragraph has a topic sentence, which is followed by evidence, and analysis. Evidence suggests that the lack of research in this area is one of the major contributing factors to why there are clear guidelines.
The second article by Venturini and Rogers (2019) is structured in a way where the authors assess Cambridge Analytica Scandal, which is followed by digital fieldwork and API-based analysis. The majority of evidence comes from other authors’ works, which they comprehensively present in more accessible, organized, and succinct form. The arguments are similar to the first article, where the authors claim that the lack of guidelines among researchers is a partial reason why the Cambridge Analytica Scandal took place. There are clear topic sentences, which are followed by evidence presentation and subsequent analysis.
The third article by Hu (2020) has the most organized structure of a typical research essay. The arguments revolve around the notion that the FTC, as a regulatory agency, is not preventative but rather merely responsive to violations. In other words, the agency does not have strong preventative measures put in place, and thus, it merely reacts to lawbreaking. The evidence is mostly based on other authors’ data and findings, and each paragraph contains a topic sentence with a clear subsequent evidence-based analysis.
The fourth source is structured as a traditional legal document, and the fifth source addresses the Cambridge Analytica case, which is followed by proposed solutions. The arguments are manifested in the fact that there needs to be public transparency, disclosure for users, control, and user notifications for their data use. The evidence is based on other works, and there are topic sentences, which are followed by evidence-based analysis.
Works Cited
FTC. (2006). Federal Trade Commission Act[PDF document].
Hu, Margaret. “Cambridge Analytica’s Black Box.” Big Data & Society, vol. 7, no. 2, 2020, pp. 1-6.
Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User data privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and privacy protection. Computer, 51(8), 56–59.
Schnneble, Christophe Olivier, et al. “The Cambridge Analytica Affair and Internet‐Mediated Research.” EMBO Reports, vol. 19, no. 8, 2018, pp. 1-2.
Venturini, Tommaso, and Richard Rogers. ““API-Based Research” or How Can Digital Sociology and Journalism Studies Learn from the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Data Breach.” Digital Journalism, vol. 7, no. 4, 2019, pp. 532-540.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.