Social media, privacy and democracy, in an online society

The ABC (2017) article suggests that organisations are using algorithms that recommend what we see and do, combined with the manipulation of news through powerful search engines, are already impacting our everyday lives, even if we don’t realise it. So why would they then not influence how we are marketed at when casting our vote?

Initially reading the article I was surprised to find that the concept of data manipulation influencing democracy had made it into what I would regard as a reputable news source. It seems hardly unexpected given the data profiling I see every day when I undertake a google search or check Facebook. Seeing ‘promotional’ items integrated amongst anticipated results, which directly mimic recent activities I have made from other platforms. A google search of ‘camper trailer’ sees ads down the side of my page for the big brands, similarly ‘liking’ the camper trailer company on Facebook, my newsfeed is then peppered with their ‘posts’, constantly reminds me that my interaction is being monitored and the data they are collecting is being used to directly market to me.

However, my view quickly changed after a recent discussion in a secondary college staff room, where staff were excited to learn that photos from their phone could be viewed in a timeline format including dates and location. Rather than being concerned with data tracking, profiling their movements they instead enjoyed reminiscing about distant memories, even commenting how much they loved receiving their google timeline updates.

When I enquired if this collation of their private information bothers them, they seemed truly surprised. Commenting “no-one else can see it”, “its only photos” and “no, it’s just on my phone, but you do have to be careful what you say, they can listen you know”. Many agreed that they too had found ads for things they had spoken about near their phone, and that this was a big concern, even running their own investigations to test it, but never considered a connection to the marketing and their online activity.

Surprisingly finding confidential information is extremely easy to do, when people forget that Google will index a high proportion of material that goes online, and if they have not been careful about where material has been stored on a server, search engine spiders may well find it (Bradley, 2017).

NBC News (2018) found that while most people accept the Facebook business model, whereby their information is collected or shared, they also want to be told when something happens to their data. Although user’s confidence in the company plunged 66% when it was revealed that their data was inappropriately acquired, nevertheless this knowledge did not change their ingrained social media behaviour.

So, if people are aware of the consequences, why do they still choose to share their information? It would seem regardless of their knowledge about the possibility of loss of privacy they value their interaction with the internet more. With the rapid evolution of the internet many adults have had no formal instruction how their privacy is influenced by their interaction on the internet, so this concept is relatively new to them, and with busy lives many don’t have the time or inclination to investigate further. However, in today’s schools there is now defined curriculum to inform and educate our students about ‘cyber safety’ and ‘information literacy’. Growing up as digital natives with the necessary dissemination and critical thinking skills to evaluate internet sources and their intentions future generations will progress and be much better prepared and able to evaluate their choices and decisions to share information.

Overtime legislation will also need to progress to ensure companies cannot continue to take advantage. While countries such as the Uk, Italy, Germany and Canada have begun undertaking investigations on data security issues, and some have completed their reports, no formal decisions have been reached. However, organisations such as Privacy International who will continue to expose and challenge data exploitation are intent on pushing their demand for transparency, and accountability (Privacy International, 2019).

One of the things that drive our democracy is knowing where our information comes from. Information from Google or our Facebook feed, commonly does not identify the source or label it as propaganda — making it appear free and independent, therefore until we have the necessary digital literacy skills, we unfortunately will continue to be susceptible to these influences.

References:

ABC News. (2017). When algorithms control information, what of democracy? Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/ai-democracy-google-facebook/8782970

Bradley, P. (2017). Expert Internet Searching: The Advanced Internet Searcher’s Handbook. London: Facet Publishing.

NBC News. (2018). Trust in Facebook has dropped by 66 percent since the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/trust-facebook-has-dropped-51-percent-cambridge-analytica-scandal-n867011

Privacy International. (2019). Cambridge Analytica, GDPR – 1 year on – a lot of words and some action. Retrieved from https://privacyinternational.org/news-analysis/2857/cambridge-analytica-gdpr-1-year-lot-words-and-some-action