Facebook, Government Control, and Privacy

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.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Advantages of Facebook Regulation
Disadvantages of Facebook Regulation
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

Once a student startup, Facebook has grown to be a tech giant and the most popular social media platform in the world. However, its outsize influence, especially after the acquisition of Instagram and Whatsapp, has caused the US-based company a great deal of legal trouble. Some of the biggest scandals that Facebook had to face concerned the issues of privacy. In the era when data has become a new form of currency, the social media platform was sharing user information with third parties or ignoring breaches in its security system allowing illicit data collection. The European Union has since decided to pass regulations to undercut Facebook’s leverage, but the United States has not yet followed suit. This essay argues that state control of Facebook may help to defend users’ right to privacy and prevent misinformation but at the same time, infringe on free speech and hurt employment opportunities and business revenues.

Advantages of Facebook Regulation

Defending the Right to Privacy

The right to privacy is one of the most fundamental freedoms enjoyed by the citizens of the United States. This freedom is guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution that states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” On the international level, the right to privacy can be found in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, according to which, no person should be “subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy […] nor attacks upon his honor and reputation.” Facebook has long been walking a fine line between collecting voluntarily shared information and infringing on users’ privacy. However, recent scandals indicate that the tech giant might have given in to its appetite for data and taken it too far.

In July 2018, Facebook was fined $5bn by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for the social company’s mishandling of user data. The court ruling was the result of the FTC’s investigation into the now-defunct British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica that allegedly found a breach in Facebook’s security system and gained access to 87 million users’ information (Ward). Aside from that, the company admitted to sharing data with Amazon and Yahoo, which is an exemption from their privacy rules. What is even worse in 2015, the Google Android system allowed Facebook to collect call and text logs from phones, which contradicts the company’s initial claim that it only collects data on personal interests.

In the Facebook v. Patel case, the company claimed that data sharing could only be deemed illegal if users were individually harmed (Ward). What this logic ignores is the magnitude of consequences and temporary immediacy of issues. Indeed, a data breach may not hurt a person directly or in the short term. Yet, Facebook is practically refusing to take responsibility for adverse future events, for instance, if someone has their reputation soiled due to involuntarily divulged information.

Preventing Misinformation

However, it is not only data collection for targeted advertising but also the contents of Facebook ads themselves that may pose a danger. Some of them are not marketing chic clothing apparel or a local cozy food place: instead, they are promoting potentially harmful views that may mislead the viewers. As reported by Gilbert, in 2019, Facebook was criticized for allowing ads suggesting negative health effects of Truvada PrEP, an HIV-prevention drug with clinically proven efficiency. Not only that but the advertisements also had a direct call to action: they were meant to recruit gay and bisexual men for receiving cash compensations because of allegedly adverse side effects of the drug. By doing so, the advertisers were preventing HIV prophylaxis among some of the most vulnerable demographics.

Disadvantages of Facebook Regulation

Infringement on Free Speech

The discussion about regulating Facebook in the United States cannot leave out the question of free speech. The latter is guaranteed by the First Amendment that says that no law should “[abridge] the freedom of speech or the press.” The amendment is not meant to protect popular opinions; it also gives the people of America the right to support fringe ideas and hold non-mainstream opinions. Probably one of the most resonant cases on this issue was Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969 when the court ruled that a Ku Klux Klan member was not breaking the law by expressing his racist views as long as they did not lead to imminent violence (Talmy and Dobzinski). Hate speech, which has recently become a buzzword for the US media, may also be protected by the First Amendment. Apart from that, history knows examples when a controversial opinion was proven to be right after an initial ban. Between 1933 and 1939, Churchill was not allowed to speak on BBC and warn his compatriots of the threat that was Hitler’s Germany. In other words, sometimes an infringement on free speech not just violates human rights but becomes a source of danger.

Facebook’s formal policies regarding free speech have so far complied with the US Constitution. According to the Community Guidelines, the company removes all content that contains “misinformation that could lead to physical harm.” However, in practice, exercising free speech in the context of Facebook is not as straightforward. Westfall exposes the platform’s inconsistency in applying their policies: while it allows Trump’s racist remarks, it deletes the Brazilian President’s opinion on the COVID-19. The same happens to advertisements that touch upon social or political issues. Likely, additional state regulations will not delineate but further complicate the case. Besides, when managed by the government, the very definition of hate speech or misinformation may become subject to change based on the current agenda.

Loss of Revenue and Employment Opportunities

What should not be ignored when analyzing the issue of Facebook regulation is that it is a business whose goal is to generate more profit. Today, about 85% of Facebook’s profit comes from advertising, which amounts to around $40 billion annually (Smith). The company is one of the biggest employers globally and in the United States, and it is growing revenues that allow them to expand its operations and hire more staff. In September 2020, 56,653 people were working for Facebook, which is a 30% increase year-over-year (Smith). Providing new employment opportunities and retaining staff is especially important during an unprecedented crisis that is the COVID-19 outbreak.

Facebook not just creates jobs but also helps small and medium businesses connect with their potential customers. As pointed out by the author of The Like Economy, Carter, Facebook is a marketing tool unlike any that the world has seen. Its “Like” system decreases marketing costs and gives businesses control over customer conversations. Doing business on this platform is transparent and conducive to creating “evangelistic customers” who share content, defend products, and increase sales.

This year, the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed many businesses to the brink of bankruptcy, and during this time, they appreciate any affordable and effective channels of communication. Bartik et al. report that in their sample, 43% of businesses closed with one of the primary reasons being a reduction in demand (17656). The Mid-Atlantic region took the hardest hit where the closure rate reached 54% of firms, and employment decreased by 47%. According to Bartik et al., the most affected industries were retail, arts and entertainment, food services, and hospitality businesses that heavily rely on social media and especially visual imagery for customer leads (17661). It is possible that new regulations will cut off the oxygen for such businesses, and they will lose any visibility on Facebook.

Conclusion

Regulating Facebook is as complex as it gets and has both potentially positive and negative consequences. On the one hand, doing so will fortify US citizens’ right to privacy guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is critical since Facebook refuses to take responsibility for delayed consequences of data leaks and sharing. Furthermore, regulations may help to stop misinformation that poses a threat to users’ mental and psychological health. On the other hand, government control may violate users’ rights to free speech by redefining what hate speech and misinformation are. Additionally, limiting advertising capacity would stifle Facebook’s expansion capacity, decreasing job and business opportunities.

Works Cited

Bartik, Alexander W., et al. “The Impact of COVID-19 on Small Business Outcomes and Expectations.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117, no. 30, 2020, pp. 17656-17666.

Carter, Brian. The Like Economy. Pearson Education, 2014.

Gilbert, Ben. “Facebook Ads Are Misleading People About the Effects of a Major Hiv Prevention Drug, Putting ‘real People’s Lives in Imminent Danger,’ Health Advocates Say.” Business Insider. 2019. Web.