This is a blog post from
Confession is good for the soul, goes the Christian proverb. The world of public relations, however, relies on a much better-serving maxim; namely that selective confession is good for your public image.
Children and salesmen inherently understand this PR twist on the Catholic saying. When a child’s hands are caught just outside the cookie jar, he or she knows that it’s much better to quickly break down and confess before the mother realizes that the child is also breaking his or her curfew.
Indeed, the best way to quell suspicion is by admitting to the smaller and slightly uncomfortable truth in hopes that the larger lie will remain undiscovered and undiscussed.
Today we are confronted with the latest act of contrition by one of Silicon Valley’s elite. Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg has wrung her hands and >apologised (in India no less) for her company’s clandestine psychological experiments.
The social networking giant’s actions follow a long line of privacy and ethical faux pas from Silicon Valley, with the highlights of the past including >Google Street View’s Wi-Fi snooping episode and Instagram’s >photo licensing controversy .
Before the Snowden leaks, there was a particular recipe that was followed when it came to such incidents. The privacy controversy is discovered, usually through some innocent blogpost, and then duly goes viral. Outrage usually follows, after which the company is forced to repent. The public, like the mother who finds her child near the cookie jar, then goes back to normal; assured that there can be nothing lurking beyond what was discovered. Repeat, ad nausem.
Another perverse example of the tech world’s selective confessions are the farcical ‘ >Transparency Reports ’ that started appearing shortly before Glen Greenwald and Edward Snowden went public.
When the first transparency reports came out, between 2010 and 2012, they were quickly heralded by the global media. It reassured most people, who believed that the companies were truly being transparent, and also succeeded in turning the spotlight on how the autocratic and oppressive governments like India were the true enemy of the Internet. What the transparency reports didn’t disclose at the time, of course, was the far greater threat: that of the NSA and other western intelligence agencies.
So, when Facebook’s data scientists start manipulating its users and Sheryl Sandberg starts apologising, what are the larger lies and facts that are going un-discussed?
Firstly, this debate on Facebook and ethics is utterly pathetic; it only serves to distract us from the main spectacle. Facebook—along with Google, Twitter and the rest of the gang— are slowly becoming a new type of business entity whose power and reach are unaccountable, hidden and ubiquitous. They are the information barons of the 21st century; being to this era what Standard Oil and John D Rockfeller were to the 19th century. Their power is near absolute, with many of their services slowly becoming synonymous with the Internet and basic social participation.
What we are quickly starting to realize is that they will not easily be supplanted by other companies of Silicon Valley—Facebook for instance is rich enough t >o buy out any viable competition . In other words, they are here to stay.
The companies themselves function in ways that confuse most legislators. It is difficult to apply government regulation to them without treading on other democratic principles such as the freedom of speech.
In some cases, like Facebook’s recent experiment, the scientific community is more than happy to reap the results of Facebook’s research without having to worry about whether they were playing by the rules. With no ethical framework surrounding our digital services, it is all too easy to outsource moral responsibility.
When those in authority, whether it is the researchers themselves or the U.S Government, are happy to have Facebook continue functioning its unregulated blank space, it is unlikely that these new information barons will ever be restrained.
Crack house
Secondly, most netizens are utterly consumed by what Evgeny Morozov terms ‘information consumerism’ or what is better framed as our fetish for free online services. After every instance of privacy violation, which sparks the usual outrage, users still come back to the table and continue to trade their personal data in exchange for communicating and socialising for free. It is a curious mixture of pain and pleasure.
While there are those who view the increasing distrust for companies like Facebook as a victory, this ‘outrage without action’ cements the position that we are addicted to giving up our personal data.
Our consumerist thirst for fossil fuels had devastating results for the environment. It is not too difficult to imagine that the ensuing commodification of information and personal data will have similar consequences for privacy and democracy.
