As Mark Zuckerberg faced congress, the world watched how unaware people really are about privacy policies and how billions of users give access to more than they can imagine on social platforms daily. During the hearing, Zuckerberg was very straightforward, honest, and unexpressive. While most members of Congress seemed to lack knowledge of how the platform worked. Zuckerberg, a very private man himself, has been exposed to a lot of commentaries and international scrutiny. Attached a photo of the hearing that I loved.
The hearing lasted two days, a total of ten hours and 600 hundred questions. The first day, April 10th, 44 senators questioned Zuckerberg on Facebook’s use of user data, election meddling, market power, and broader privacy violation. A hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee followed this. The outcome opened a discussion for implementation of increase in transparency and more-limited regulations when it comes to ads.
For policy change, this meant the first public hearing in Congress that examines ‘cybersecurity’ and privacy concerns. This could be the reason policymakers where so unaware of the platform and the functionality of privacy. On the other hand, this can also open a window of possibility for lawmakers on the topic of online privacy. Starting this conversation on regulations of privacy policies could increase the confidence of organizations and users.
In the hearing, Senator Graham asked Zuckerberg if he would embrace regulation? To which he responded, the question is not if there should be regulation or not but what is the right regulation.
Online privacy on the context of grassroots advocacy could be beneficial because they can get a lot of information from the target audience they want to address through social platforms yet a step back could be that their lack of funds could lead to people hijacking their information and stealing confidential information. As for a stance in this debate, advocacy organizations should encourage regulation for the safety of the constituents.
In class, when we discussed e-advocacy success we read an article titled Digital Activism Decoded that said: “the best way to keep sensitive information private is to keep it offline in the first place.” So I guess it all depends on what you are willing to lose when you make your information available online. Even though it does not seem like it you are making that information public record.
The reading on The Realm of the Expected Redefining the Public and Private Spheres in Social Media by Jasmine E. McNealy talks about how “new forms of communication require a shift in attitudes to accepting the idea that just because few people could access information does not mean it is no longer private even on the Internet” (Sprague, 2008) This correlates with Facebook because having a network of friends on your profile does not mean only that network has access to your posts, photos, messages.
For those of us who saw the hearing or at least 15 minutes of the 10 hours Marc Zuckerberg was questioned by the United States government: what should come next? And is this issue of privacy as relevant to grassroots organizations as it is to corporate companies? As for Marc Zuckerberg actions after the hearing, Facebook has started sending privacy alert messages.
Attached photo of what I have recently received in my news feed.
No comments:
Post a Comment