Technological Convergence And Freedom Of Speech

Dawson A. Grever

Department of Communication, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

Comm 440-01: New Communication Technologies

May 8, 2024

When the videos “Converging Technologies” and “Free Speech, Internet Privacy, and the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’” were published, the United States was considerably different from the modern day. Today technology is causing critical change in the way individuals communicate and interact with their family, friends, news media, and the government. Political protests occurring across the United States exemplify the change technology is having on the way individuals communicate. With a larger communication network, and new media able to broadcast messages in an instant, protests and movements have more sway in the nation than they did twenty years ago (Shirky, 2011). Now, with social media more rapid access to websites where individuals can upload live videos and publish about their experiences or produce misleading information, this combined with nearly immediate access to other individuals across the globe has led to information becoming considerably less private, less trustworthy, and increasingly accessible. Although the use of new media for political change is positive and essential freedom of expression, this information provides a dangerous gateway into the release of misleading information, both related to personal lives and the global landscape.  

The video “Converging Technologies” discusses what impacts technology implementation and convergence had on the workplace and individual’s lives when the video was released. The author demonstrates how technology as simple as a flip phone camera is changing the way individuals interact with the world around them. The author exemplifies this through interviewing individuals about their phone usage and what the main asset they utilize, most clarified it was the camera. This point is further exemplified through discussion about the Blackberry cell phone, and the way that this device had changed where and how individuals do their work. With devices like cell phones and gaming consoles playing multiple roles, the video explores how organizations such as Microsoft and Apple may be controlling and implementing major change into the market, implementing an increase of dependence on technology and opening the world of exploitation by corporations. The video, “Free Speech, Internet Privacy, and the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’”, examines the way that internet privacy, freedom of speech, and liberty interact with one another in an ever evolving digital landscape. The video examines freedom of speech through examination of the early definitions, specifically examining Louis Brandeis’ definitions of freedom of speech, and how this is impacted in the digital world. The video brings in Peter Vogel, an expert in the area, to discuss the roots of these freedoms and how important they are with new media. 

Both videos explore how technology is impacting law and society through implementation and convergence into a vast array of different fields. In ironic fashion, both videos explain the threats of these technologies, as well as their benefits, in a format that is now provided through streaming services, Kanopy, as a way of spreading information. Both videos equally demonstrate the impacts that new media and internet technologies are playing in changing the way individuals interact and react. Both explore the harmful effects of information release, “Converging Technologies”, specifically focuses on how increased information released through usage of technology such as the iPhone or Blackberry could lead to organizations utilizing this information against an individual. In similar fashion, “Free Speech, Internet Privacy, and the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’” examines how media sources, such as Google and online articles, can release public information that may not be so easily expunged; this type of information release can be extremely harmful, especially when released. 

Data leaks and information releases can lead to harmful impacts on individuals who intend to share personal information with family members, significant others, or friends, but now with data breaches, this information can become accessible nearly instantaneously. This information is stated to be expungeable once it is available to the internet, and yet in 2010 when WikiLeaks, a whistleblower organization, was shut down by the United States government, as they were deemed too dangerous of an organization for the government to allow to exist (Moran Yemini, 2019). This type of government action sets a dangerous precedent for what government control on individual rights of expression may look like as technology evolves alongside data control (Sangsuvan, 2014). With this in mind, does government oversight need to be more implemented into the world of internet expression, and to what extent, or should the internet become an increasingly free forum of thought and information for individuals, and to what extent is this freedom of information too dangerous for the individual?

Understanding the impact technological convergence will have on freedom of speech and liberty is crucial for individuals hoping to learn how to navigate the current media landscape. The advent of the internet and social media platforms has facilitated modern global communication becoming commonplace for individuals in a vast number of countries. Furthermore, in the cases where individuals can express themselves freely, the video “Free Speech, Internet Privacy, and the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’” states that this information published and put forth by individuals cannot be so easily retracted. The author explores this concept and individuals’ right to privacy, which Sangsuvan discusses as an evolving landscape for privacy in his article (Sangsuvan,  2014). Although tech companies such as Meta have taken steps to protect this information, the inability to retract information has led to a fear of speaking out. Peter Vogel further speaks about regulation on privacy violation within the video discussing privacy on the internet and the impact this has on free speech. Vogel states that the EU took early charge of privacy, specifically in Germany, where legislation was passed to protect images from children and impacted global policy. 

The Google policy laid out by the EU set an interesting precedent for past news and articles of similar nature, establishing the ‘right to be forgotten’, but this only extended to items of public nature, not necessarily applicable to actual news. This concept of news being public information that cannot be revoked was established in 2010 when a Spanish individual attempted to have a 1998 news article repealed, furthering the extent to which the ‘right to be forgotten’ applies. This has interesting applicability when applied to modern technologies and released information, specifically through the context of misleading information and false media supported by modern technologies, such as AI image generation and social media. The question that arises from this is who decides whether information is misleading or not, and if the information is accurate but delegated as misleading and further removed. Although access to the internet is not a human right, the International Covenant on Citizens Protected Rights, which were established by the UN, guarantees an individual access to the right of expression, and limiting access to a global expressive forum may constitute limitation of this right (Sangsuvan, 2014). This is an important piece of information for individuals to analyze and understand for the primary reason that limitation to a right to expression is an open limitation of the freedom of speech.

The Irony of Free Speech, published by the Columbia Science and Technology Law Review and Written by Moran Yemini explores the implications of technology convergence on free speech, such as is analyzed within the videos on “Converging Technologies” and freedom of speech within the new technological landscape. Yemini executes this study by utilizing a primarily law-oriented scope in order to explain the threats this convergence poses. The author relates to an article published twenty-two years earlier and discusses how the new media and internet landscape has changed the way freedom of speech is viewed and protected in the modern day. The author continues to delve into the complexities of freedom of expression and how technological advancement and convergence will impact that freedom of expression with increased access to more individuals and information, further analyzing the way that technology has led to an illusion of freedom for the individual, and has dulled the individual’s realization that the rights that they have are easily infringed in this digital landscape.

 Yemini begins by discussing the impact information and communication technologies are having on the individual’s perception and interactions with the world, similar to the “Converging Technologies” video discussion on the impact of the Blackberry. Just like the Blackberry cell phone impacted the way individuals worked and where they worked, new media has impacted the way individuals interact with information, being provided with a constant source. The author states that these technologies have not simply reshaped and changed social norms, but are also influencing the moral values that culture used to inform (Yemini, 2019). For example, in the video, “Free Speech, Internet Privacy, and the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’”, the resident expert brought on to discuss privacy stating that students in the modern day are no longer concerned with privacy, exemplifying what Yemini discusses. The author continues within the article to explore the impact technologically induced social change is having on the individual’s freedom of expression. Yemini states that the digitally dependent landscape that individuals now live in has led to a constraining of the individual’s availability to true liberty, which Yemini defines as a freedom to express oneself without interference from higher powers. The author cites the interference from a “digital ecosystem” and a lack of anonymity for this. Similarly to the article on free speech and the inert right to privacy established by Brandes in the 1890s, the information which WatchIt provided. The author highlights that privacy is no longer truly available to individuals on the internet, leading to an increased fear of individuals coming forward, reinforcing the concept of the spiral of silence theory.

Clay Shirky’s article, “The Political Power of Social Media”, also explored the impact new media, specifically social media, has on political activism, governance, and the freedom and ability of an individuals to express themselves, exploring both concepts discussed in “Converging Technologies” and “Free Speech, Internet Privacy, and the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’”. For reference the author refers to the 2001 impeachment proceedings of former Philippine President Joseph Estrada. Individuals from throughout the nation raised word that the president might be released without penalty and coordinated mass protests through social media; throughout the protest, over one million people showed support. Shirky argues that technological convergence is a positive item for free speech, allowing for an increased level of expression and an increased audience with which to interact and express one’s self. 

Shirky does acknowledge both the failures and threats that this may play to individuals as well. The author states that social media usage for political uses specifically can fail in situations where government suppression is extremely high. In these environments, the government message, propaganda, and overwhelming force can often outweigh the intangible messages on social media. Furthermore, the author explores the implementation of this propaganda within oppressive and authoritarian regimes as a tool to prevent political change. The usage of statecraft through social media and the internet the author recognizes as dangerous and a tool that could be utilized to silence individuals, a frightening side of technological convergence within these types of societies. The article concludes stating that although there are problems and threats contained within the implementation of new media into the political sphere, it is an important step forward for society. The author also makes a call to arms, in similar fashion to the video, “Free Speech, Internet Privacy, and the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’”, asking for the world governments to aid in developing increased access to information and media for freedom of expression to reach oppressed nations.

“Balancing Freedom of Speech on the Internet Under International Law”, an article written by Kitsuron Sansuvan at the University of North Carolina School of Law, examines the way international law has impacted individual expression online, whether through new media or within internet forums. Similarly to the last few articles, Sangsuvan also explores the impact that convergence between new media and internet technology with government oversight might have on individual freedoms and liberty. 

Understanding the impact technological convergence will have on freedom of speech, liberty, and personal privacy cannot be understated. Technological advancement  has allowed for the empowerment of individuals, allowing for engagement in public discourse and activism on political, economic, and natural topics. This empowerment of individuals, though positive, has also led to concerns about privacy and the impact this will have on individual expressionism (Yemini, 2019). This change in communication and communication technologies also highlights the need for a change in legislation to guarantee individual protection from government overreach, and increased protection of the individual’s right to be forgotten, allowing for individuals to fight for their privacy as was seen in the 2006 Google case in the EU. With the increased usage of AI as a new communication technology, maintaining awareness of the implications of convergence and adjusting accordingly, as was seen in the Google case, is paramount for protecting individual liberties within a digital landscape. Though the media landscape has evolved to be considerably less private, maintaining effective legislation manages and mitigates the level of risk consumers will be taking on, and continues to be a useful tool for activists, businesses, and individuals.

References

Moran Yemini. (2019). The New Irony of Free Speech. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.7916/stlr.v20i1.4769

Sangsuvan, K. (2014). NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW INTERNATIONAL LAW Balancing Freedom of Speech on the Internet under International Balancing Freedom of Speech on the Internet under International Law Law. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2002&context=ncilj

Shirky, C. (2011). The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/25800379.pdf?casa_token=jA_27ZVfOgkAAAAA:vGYazrZgJr2tdTWj1kybfUqebVEld8Ol0AirjiqDKFB2W3CkCEVQH9fzk1263zXoPAQBlrlAqAy8Xf1sbhL8x1xgYmXacCPyIBBkR7SFkL3COkZjl6A

Wikipedia works off of the contributions of many different people, of different knowledge levels. Wikipedia makes a point of highlighting the principles they hold most dear, such as accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability while being able to provide information based on agreed knowledge and a number of differing sources. Entries and writings undergo a myriad of edits, most of them continuous since the first entries into the subjects. The specific page being covered is on the Battle of Peleliu during the Second World War. This page was chosen because the topic has a largely dedicated following, as shown by the Revision History, which dates back to 2001 and has remained constantly edited for the past twenty-three years. Looking at the revisions made over a period of time this extensively provides an interesting picture to the types of changes being made, and the process by which these changes are verified and greenlit for publication on the page. The page covering the Battle of Peleliu is a specifically strong example of the complex interactions between members of the community and information. By examining the debates surrounding information, the page provides an interesting example of communal information.

The Battle of Peleliu’s Wikipedia page experience’s active conversation, consistent edits to text, and reviews for accuracy and the background checking of information. Digging through the revision history reveals a number of disagreements and arguments, usually academically supported, addressing items of contention such as casualty numbers, historical interpretations of certain texts and statements, as well arguments over how relevant these statements and personal testimonies from veterans are. The page on the Battle of Peleliu covers the complexity of having a community based page dedicated to the addition of information to a transcript exploring a historical event. This page specifically highlights how dynamic collaborative editing is, and how as information changes and becomes more available the pages change dynamically with that information. 

The dynamic changes to the Wikipedia page also highlights the intricate ways in which patterns impact reivisons. Throughout the past twenty-three years, whenever more information becomes available, or a claim is made about new information becoming available, members of the page discuss and verify the information first. One such example occurred in 2022, when the group began to discuss information that could not be verified about the Order of Battle and a completely different page being formed dedicated just to this. Older posts are similar to this, but increasingly mature in comparison. Further delving into the revision history shows the process by which information is added, modified and verified on the Wiki, with each edit representing a contribution to the collective understanding of various concepts.

With the amount of information being processed by Wikipedia, it is a wonder how the organization manages to maintain accuracy and fact check material. Wikipedia has an established editing model, which they discuss on their “Reliability of Wikipedia” page. The page states that anyone, with or without verification, can contribute to the page, and that these contributors are some of the most valuable contributors the organization encounters, providing a wealth of information as accurately as they can.Wikipedia itself states that the process of fact-checking is rigorous, with the job being given to Wikipedia editors. The fact-checking requires intense scrutiny and verification of the content published on the site in order to maintain reliability and accuracy. This effort is most definitely efficient, as companies such as Youtube and Meta utilize Wikipedia to maintain and ensure accuracy of information within their own media; which emphasizes how truly reliable the information must remain. As part of the company philosophy, Wikipedia places a large emphasis on seeking public trust to reinforce the commitment the organization made to providing accurate information for all of their users.

Topics that are most often discussed, instead of being debated or contested, are topics about adding to existing knowledge, such as the addition of maps, increased depth into already established topics, or pages dedicated solely to certain topics. Another thing that is often discussed is rewording of statements from the original article, either to improve how professional the article sounds, fix improper grammar, or to make the article more brief and easy to understand. One example of this is between the February 10, 2023 article and the modern revision was the removal of information that is too complex, and would force the reader to have to backtrack for more information. Line two-hundred sees a change from “On the second day,” to the exact date of a discussed occurrence, which was simply fixed with limited discussion.

Other discussions are extremely contentious, and lead to a much more convoluted and argumentative way of finding a solution. One more recent example on the subject page was the efforts the United States Army put into the battle. A user discussed on the talk page his disdain for the lack of effort being put in to explore the exploits of the Army, and what he believes is a focus much too heavy on the Marine Corps, and the efforts the Marines played on the island. Situations like this lead to arguments due to the amount of passion certain members have for the topic, especially in a topic such as The Battle of Peleliu and World War Two in general. With historical periods that were so critical to the modern world that involved so many millions of people, it is difficult to have some of this information not feel important and personal. 

Items that are debated often become topics of contention, this is the case in Wikipedia just as much as it is in the real world. The Battle of Peleliu page reflects the complex world of interpreting historical events. Contributors personal connection to topics oftentimes fuel passionate debates, this compounded with a decreased interest in relational development with people online can lead to increased contention within the Wikipedia communities. 

Wikipedia is a unique world of communal knowledge, which operates under a complex process of constant additions, editing, and polishing; sometimes for over twenty years. The Wikipedia page covering the Battle of Peleliu illustrates the extremely complex process by which these entries are generated, vetted, and constantly refined. In this world communication is constant, as seen through analyzing the “talk” page on the chosen article. These discussions and debates within the community show the importance of constructive discourse, leading to a polished and informative final product that provides sources that have certainly been peer reviewed. Wikipedia serves not only as store of communal knowledge, made easily accessible for the average person with access to the internet, but as a forum for opinions to be discussed, perspectives to be heard, and the fostering of a culture that values accurate information for the sake of creating accurate information.

For this week, I chose to analyze the videos “In the Age of AI”, by PBS Frontline, as well as Elena Rossini’s “The Illusionists” , a documentary produced in 2015. In both films, the narrators provide expository examinations of the societal impacts both AI and media influence has had on the younger more impacted generations, such as Millennials, Generation Z, and the youngest Generation, Generation Alpha. The PBS documentary focuses on AI, and the implications the technology has for the various parts of daily life, such as the future of employment, impact on society and societal norms, as well as the threat it may pose to governing systems, differing from the film, “The Illusionists”. The 2015 film, similarly analyzes how another form of technology, popular media, has influenced modern societal norms, such as beauty standards and consumer culture. Both videos consult experts who analyze the impact of the specific technology they are analyzing. The PBS documentary brings in Kai-Fu Lee, an AI expert, who discusses the potential AI has in revolutionizing society in a positive way, if it can be harnessed responsibly. In his analysis of the technology, Lee states that collaboration between the world superpowers is the only way to ensure that the technology is harnessed for good, an unlikely outcome. “The Illusionists” focuses on archival footage, such as advertisements from the 1980s up to the 2010s, with experts coming in to analyze the footage provided, and the impact this media has already had on the world. This video focuses, instead, on self-perceptions and how they have been impacted by media industries. This documentary works to expose how unrealistic body and beauty standards are perpetuated by mainstream media, and the impact this is having on younger generations. 

Both videos highlight the extent to which new communication technologies can impact a society. The PBS documentary emphasized the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) to revolutionize the way people live in their day to day life, from how they are governed, interact, and what the work environment looks like. The documentary further emphasized how important strategy and collective progress for the betterment of society is the only way to avoid abusing the power that comes with this new technology. In similar fashion, “The Illusionists” examines the role of technology, mainly advertisement media and social media, in changing culture; from ideas of beauty, to fashion sense, to sewing a sense of inadequacy in younger generations who can’t meet beauty standards, highlighting a need for ethical practice to avoid immoral advertising and media techniques. Both videos emphasize the need for a skeptical engagement with the modern communication technologies, and for those being impacted by these technologies to be aware, and ensure they are learned on the consequences of these life changing technologies. 

Josephine Wollf’s editorial in the University of California Press, How is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology, echoes the views and thoughts of the both videos while making important observations on how “technologies are becoming increasingly complicated and increasingly interconnected”. These observations are critical in how technology users can begin to understand the way that technology, government, and society will be able to interact. The complexity of this task is echoed within the PBS documentary, which observes the power of new communication technologies, like AI, and stresses the importance of careful observation of the implications these objects have. Rossini’s film, in similar fashion, examines the impact of media and advertising, mass communication technologies, which AI has comparable potential,  on society, being able to shift views. Wolff states, for the aforementioned reasons, there is a need for strong technology policy and variations in regulatory approaches to this technology due to the fact that this technology is becoming increasingly interconnected with all aspects of the world around the public.

Tobias Delin and Niklas Johanne’s examination of technology use and the impact it has on adolescents may, on the other hand, contradict the views seen in the two videos. Johannes and Dienlin assert that digital technology and the effects caused by the usage of technology vary depending on the type of use, with procastinary behaviors being associated with negative effects, while social engagement being linked to more positive outcomes. The others suggest that “moderate use is related to increased well-being” (Dienlin & Johannes, 2020), inferring that a number of the problems being discussed within “The illusionists” specifically could be prevented or limited alongside limited exposure to certain technologies. Both documentaries highlight the potential of technology, with the PBS documentary emphasizing the potentially positive effects  of artificial intelligence, and Elena Rossini’s documentary exposing what negative impacts media has on societal norms and self-perception. Dienlin and Johannes state that “the current research still has many limitations” (Dienlin & Johannes, 2020), advising that what is known about these new technologies is widely speculation, and needs to be further investigated. 

The videos, “In the Age of AI” and Elena Rossini’s “The Illusionists” provide a valuable insight into the potential dangers of new technologies, based on real occurrences that are apparent in daily life. While the documentaries highlight the potential positives of artificial intelligence and media, they also highlight the importance of ethical awareness and knowledge of the potential consequences that these new technologies may bring with them. These views are echoed through Josephine Wolff’s editorial, as well as the journal from Tobias Delin and Niklas Johannes’s examination of technology, and the impact it is having on the adolescent population. The insights provided by these videos and article emphasize the need for a comprehensive approach to navigating an ever-evolving digital landscape, with users being careful and considerate of the implications the media and technology they consume may have. 

References

Dienlin, T., & Johannes, N. (2020). The impact of digital technology use on adolescent well-being. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 22(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.31887/dcns.2020.22.2/tdienlin

FRONTLINE PBS | Official. (2019). In the Age of AI (full film) | FRONTLINE. In Kanopy. https://www.kanopy.com/en/uww/video/6085067

Rossini, E. (2015). The Illusionists – Abridged Version. In Kanopy. https://www.kanopy.com/en/uww/video/160006/160010

Wolff, J. (2021). How Is Technology Changing the World, and How Should the World Change Technology? Global Perspectives, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1525/gp.2021.27353

HBO’s “The Future of Work” analyzes the immense impact that technological advancements have had on modern day industries and the overall landscape of employment. The video explores how automation, AI, and global shifts towards cheaper labor are revolutionizing job markets. This has left many of the average workers feeling uncertain about their futures.

The Trump Administration’s approach to adjusting the workforce in the U.S. was one focus in the video. Instead of relying on an increase in public investment, the administration would prefer to leverage private industry to address workforce development. This would mean influencing and persuading CEOs to pledge to worker training, a much more expensive alternative in the short run. A number of companies have agreed to this initiative, but concerns are raised about the potential situations that could be caused by reliance on private companies addressing public concerns. 

The video goes on to further feature insights from individuals that have been impacted directly by these changes. Workers at the impacted Toyota factory expressed optimism about the company’s commitment to workforce training, whereas others remained skeptical, viewing it as an empty PR move. Vice’s correspondent continues on to explain the complexities these workers face, balancing working, family, and the reskilling efforts throughout a changing job market.

Andrew Yang, a businessman and former presidential candidate, provided a deeper set of insights. Yang advocated for a universal basic income as a mitigating solution to handle the impacts of automation and job displacement. Yang states that this universal income would provide those displaced with a bit of financial stability, allowing those affected to pursue meaningful work and further adapt to a newly evolving economy. Criticism against universal income states that this is a temporary solution to a long-term problem, and that it would be much more efficient to address the root of economic inequalities.

HBO continues on to explore universal basic income (UBI) as an approach to addressing the challenges posed by technological workforce advancements. The Stockton experiment out of California shows off this approach. Mayor Michael Tubbs utilized silicon valley income to support those being forced out of work by robotics and other technological advancements. The mayor further speaks about a ‘robot tax’ that would go towards supporting those affected. 

Ultimately, “The Future of Work” highlights the desperate need for businesses, policymakers, and communities to confront the harsh realities of a labor market developing much too rapidly. While advancements in technology offer opportunities for increased innovation and productivity, those advancements also provide a significant challenge, mass job displacement and increasing economic inequality. 

HBO’s breakdown in “The Future of Work” provided a thought-provoking dive into the extreme changes happening in the business world. The correspondents provided by Vice examined the perspectives of workers, experts, and policymakers that highlighted the need for action. By acting against unfair integration of rapidly-advancing technology into the economy, the United States has the potential to maintain our way of life and prevent inequality comparable to that of the early 1900s in the industrial revolution. 

The 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal shook the world of politics, social media, and modern technology. This scandal saw the illumination of the shady world between data privacy, voter manipulation, and user concerns, changing how the government and users of technology interact for good. As the revelations about Facebook and Cambridge Analytica’s exploitation of user data for political purposes, concerns over the integrity of democratic processes in the United States and abroad and the vulnerability of personal information jumped to the forefront of public argument. By exploring the missteps of these organizations and the violations of ethics they committed, communicators can become better equipped and more understanding of social media, and the distrust sewn into the public’s mind. 

Cambridge Analytica exploited personal data without user consent, as is explored in Hal Berghel’s Article “Malice Domestic: The Cambridge Analytica Dystopia,” written in 2018, fresh on the heels of the incident. The scandal unfolded after a Cambridge professor, Aleksandr Kogan Spectre, and a number of associates established a company called Global Science Research to capitalize off of a Facebook extension called ‘thisisyourdigitallife,’ which collected and harvested the information of participants, most of whom were tricked into thinking that it was a harmless BuzzFeed-esque personality test. This app collected user data without consent and utilized it for politically influential purposes. Kogan and his associates at GSR collected information from “an estimated 50 million people,” (Berghel, 2018) and was then marketed to the Republican party, also according to Berghel and his sources. 

At the heart of Cambridge Analytica’s strategy is the exploitation of user trust in social media platforms. By leveraging user participation in these platforms, the company gained access not only to the data of users that opted-in to sharing data, but also stole the information of said user’s social network without explicit consent. This cloak and dagger data collection led to, fairly raised, questions about the efficacy of existing privacy protections, and the transparency companies such as Facebook utilize in their advertising practices. This scandal was key to exposing individuals’ vulnerabilities to manipulation through advertising, highlighting a need for greater awareness and oversight to avoid unethical situations such as what unfolded with the Cambridge Analytica Scandal.

The aftermath of the scandal prompted broader discussions about what the implications are of leaving data exploitation unchecked, shedding light on the power that social media owners, such as Mark Zuckerberg, and political entities hold over social media users, raising concerns about what choices aren’t being influenced by targeted algorithms and data analytics. The advent of personal data weaponization, especially in the political field, presents a very real threat to democratic processes. This necessitates the introduction of regulatory governmental frameworks over social networking organizations, similar to those established for banks. Additionally, the scandal highlighted the importance of data literacy among social media users.

In the journal article “It Wouldn’t Happen to Me,” written by Joanne Hinds, Emma Williams, and Adam Joinson, the authors address the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the privacy concerns that followed the misplacement of trust by Facebook and Cambridge Analytica. Cambridge Analytica’s involvement in political campaigns was shown through their controversial acquisition of Facebook user data, a practice that stole data not just from those who agreed to share their information, but also from associates of those who opted in to data sharing. This was an egregious example of a privacy leak that Facebook overlooked until it was brought to light. The scandal unfolded with the realization, from Facebook, that around 87 million, as opposed to the 50 million assumed in Hal Berghel’s article, Facebook profiles had information collected without consent, and this data was used to formulate a “psychologically tailored” (Hinds et al., 2020) targeted political messaging. The size of this data exploitation, subsequently, led to public outrage and a hearing by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in May of 2018. The concern was that the psychological targeting led to a swing in the 2016 U.S. presidential election via exploitation of the American public. The scandal brought attention to the ethical implications of misusing user data and emphasizes significant gaps in individual awareness of threats to privacy.

Hal Berghel’s article further analyzes and discusses how far Cambridge Analytica intervened in the United States democratic process, and betrayed the faith of voters and app users. Cambridge Analytica’s involvement in political campaigns was trademarked through the analysis of user data, and the further use of this data to manipulate and influence voters. According to the article, the company’s strategy involved “meticulous analysis of whatever data they rely on, from Facebook or some other source,” (Berghel, 2018) this allowed Cambridge Analytica to designate what they called ‘political hot buttons,’ to goad voter decisions. This terrifying approach allowed Cambridge Analytica to tailor political messaging to specific individuals, exploiting the opinions of voters, their ability to vote, and compromising the elections.  The tactics Cambridge Analytica used is likened to propaganda by Berghel, and is an accurate comparison. The article notes that the company “weaponized social media, online trolling, and botnets to efficiently [target] voters” (Berghel, 2018). Using the stolen data acquired through Facebook’s exploitation of user trust, the organization started spewing misinformation and goading voters into online conflicts, one way or another.

The aftermath of this scandal led to serious discussion regarding the future of user privacy in the new digital age, focusing on prevention of a situation like this from happening ever again. The research done in “It Wouldn’t Happen to Me” following the scandal shows how complex individual perception of online privacy is. Though there was considerable outrage from the public after the release of the scandal, data from the article shows that people continued to use Facebook, showing a discrepancy between the outrage being shown and the actual responses from the public. A majority of individuals did not alter any privacy settings nor delete accounts, but instead continued using the app as if nothing had happened.

Furthermore the research conducted in the article emphasizes the challenges faced by users trying to understand online privacy, particularly how their personal data is used and who is using it. The article describes this inability to understand as “significant hurdles for users seeking to protect their personal data,” (Hinds et al., 2020). The study further moves on to highlight a concerning lack of awareness amongst app users regarding the potential implications of the digital footprints they leave behind every time they get behind a screen. This data can and will be exploited by those seeking to make gains off of personal information if it is not properly protected, making it pertinent for app users to understand that their data can be sold to make them a target. The authors of the article outline the situation in the following: “This gap in understanding, coupled with the inherent complexities of privacy decision-making, suggests a need for greater education and transparency surrounding data practices,” (Hinds et al., 2020).

Berghel’s analysis also sheds light on the implications produced by the scandal. The author discusses the essential pieces of the issue, stating that “social media and free online services have been, and will continue to be weaponized against us-we’re the product!” (Berghel, 2018). The observation he makes here is frightening but not unrealistic. With more integration of products into the home, such as the Alexa home assistant, Siri on the iPhone, and Amazon utilizing artificial intelligence to assist in shopping, more and more personal data is being collected, making it considerably easier for these organizations to build psychological profiles, like Cambridge Analytica did in 2018. This means that targeted ads will become more accurate, posts on social media will be easier to target to users, and algorithms will predict behavior consistently. The reality is that individuals and their habits become commodities in the digital world, where personal data can be utilized for a number of purposes without consent. Additionally, Berghel’s analysis discusses what this could mean for the future of the democratic process. How can an election be truly fair when candidates have more means to advertise themselves and their beliefs in an individuals home, as opposed to the new progressive candidates, and their inability to break into what would become, essentially, a closed power loop with only the most elite controlling beliefs, due to the fact that organizations like Facebook contain all of the data needed to predict a user.

The two articles analyzed provide a frightening insight into the world of data collection and the potential horrors of data breaches similar to the Cambridge Analytica Scandal. The scandal marked a frightening junction in the road between politics, social media, and private information; making a case for how consequential data breaches are for users. Data exploitation by Cambridge Analytica and Facebook caused immense amounts of discourse within the United States, drawing a political candidate into question, and reaping the benefits of stealing from tens of millions of individuals. Though the scandal was a large ordeal, the lessons provided by the scandal have not been considered by the public. As analyzed in the 2020 article by Hinds, Williams, and Joinson, many social media users did not even bother to change their security settings, which could provide the potential for another breach. Berghel’s insights provide a deep and unsettling understanding that as individuals become increasingly codependent on social media for entertainment and engagement, their data is becoming increasingly harvested, and utilized as a form of currency. In the aftermath of such a scandal, it is imperative that social media users become educated on how their data is being used, wary of what data they allow social media to collect, and demand of companies, like Facebook, transparency to avoid a repeat of 2018.

Citations

Hinds, J., Williams, E. J., & Joinson, A. N. (2020). “It wouldn’t happen to me”: Privacy concerns and perspectives following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 143, 102498-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102498

Schneble, C. O., Elger, B. S., & Shaw, D. (2018). The Cambridge Analytica affair and Internet‐mediated research. EMBO Reports, 19(8). https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201846579

“The Facebook Dilemma” Covered by PBS’s Frontline highlights the varied impacts the organization has had on society. The documentaries emphasize the role Facebook played in shaping global politics, the impacts the organization has had on privacy, and the societal divisions the organization has caused. The PBS film continues to further analyze Facebook’s evolution from a platform to connect family and friends to an organization of controversy and conflict, raising questions about its influence on the modern democracy. Despite Facebook’s mission of openness and connection, Facebook’s business model is extremely reliant on data collection and advertising revenue, leading to conflicts of and ethical dilemmas regarding the privacy of Facebook users.

The documentary emphasizes Facebook, and owner Mark Zuckerberg’s, extreme influence on political discourse, activism, international politics, as well as domestic politics. PBS illustrates how Facebooks has been utilized by governments such as Russia in the 2014 Ukrainian conflict, political operatives, and malicious actors to incite violence and spread misinformation to further their own goals. This poses the dangerous question, what is to stop Facebook from doing the same? PBS Frontline reporters move on to cover that despite warnings from stakeholders, Facebook’s dismissiveness and delayed responses underscore the organization’s inability to be accountable and act in a socially responsible manner, as emphasized by the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

The PBS documentary’s analysis emphasizes the great need for improved transparency from Facebook, and in the modern day Zuckerberg’s further companies such as Instagram, in order to stem the negative consequences his organizations can have on society, democracies, and individuals. The analysis provided by PBS raises a critical question about the importance of addressing ethical and societal impacts organizations running amuck in the manner that they have been allowed. Only when laws disallowing the sale of personal information become more stringent, clear, and well enforced will we see an improvement in ethics.

My name is Dawson Grever, and I am a junior here at UW-Whitewater. I live in the Lake Geneva area, commute, and take classes online to further my education and prepare myself for my future in the professional world.

Feel free to follow along with me as I make posts for my classes, share my thoughts, and discuss my views on articles and videos!