deadPix3l

Before I start, I would like to say the opinons here are my own, and are not representative of anyone or anything else. You may not agree with my points, and that’s okay. I love a good, civil debate. If you disagree with any point I’ve made, I am open to discussion. I would love that, and I am happy to include your opinions as well, with your permission, if you so choose.

Okay, so this is more of a rant-type post. Most people reading this probably understand intuitively most of the things I take issue with. But, apparently not everyone understands these things, because multiple senators asked questions that made me question how they could possibly need to ask those questions. How is it they don’t already understand the answer. This will be a long post, so here we go.

First, Zuckerberg was lambasted several times about how long and legalese the Terms of Service was. How could he possibly expect anyone to read that?! What was he thinking?! Zuckerberg made it very clear that he doesn’t expect that anyone reads it fully, or even at all. Then why have it? BECAUSE IT’S LEGALLY REQUIRED IF THEY DON’T WANT TO BE SUED INTO OBLIVION! But why is it so hard to read, so lawyer speak? BECAUSE IF IT WASN’T, IT WOULDN’T BE LEGALLY ENFORCABLE! I don’t blame them for making it so hard to read, they are just trying to not get sued into the ground over every little thing. It’s a “cover your ass” thing. He was asked to rewrite it in a simple understandable language. If simple, easily understood language was enforcable, then lawyers wouldn’t write legal documents to be 100 pages consisting of 12 syllable words.

Next question. Do you store users’ data? Yes. GASP! Many of those questioning him seemed appalled at the fact that facebook stores and SHARES user data! Guess what? In order for people to see your posts, and pictures of your family, or your last meal, or that funny dog meme, it must be shared with them. And for that to happen, it must be stored on a server somewhere. Storing and sharing user data is literally what facebook is made for. Another question was could he share someone’s data without consent. Yes he could. Not legally, or rightfully, but just physically, yes, he has that capability. So does google, snapchat, Microsoft, the coffee shop down the street, etc. If you have provided data to them, then they are physically capable of moving and sharing that data. This is why data breaches and government leaks happen. Because it is physically possible. But Should he? Would he? Is it legal? Those are different questions, and I think that mix up was made quite a few times.

Should you have to get clear, explicit permission from users before you share their data? Yup. and Zuck agrees. My main issue with this, is that by posting something to facebook, that is explicit permission to store it. Every post you make, has a little button in the corner that decides who you want to see it. So posting gives EXPLICIT permission to show it to those people! How is this hard to grasp?

Next. If I’m talking to a friend about chocolate, then I receive an ad about chocolate, that looks like spying, no? Okay, this one is kind of legitmate and controversial. I would hope there is no spying happening, but if you were talking about a certain brand of chocolate, chances are you like that brand. You may have bought it before, posted pictures of it titled “CHEAT DAY!!” or liked their facebook page so you can express your love of the brand or learn when the new “Super vanilla mint” flavor gets announced. My point, just because you were talking about it recently, doesn’t mean they’re spying. You would have seen that ad even if you didn’t have that discussion. It’s definitely something to look into, and make sure they aren’t breaching our privacy, but its quite possible it’s just concidence and confirmation bias.

Which brings me to my next point. Somebody mentioned how we shouldnt allow racially targetted ads. I agree to some extent. Racist ads are never okay, but sometimes it is legitimately acceptable to market to certain races or colors of people. let me give some examples. (Note: From a white speaker, any term relating to darker skinned individuals can be polarizing. There is no racism present here, but I will not be using the term “African American” because the internet is a global place, and I am not assuming nationality. If you take issue with the terms I use, please recommend an alternative, and I will change it if appropriate.)

• A makeup company has received many complaints that their palest blend is not pale enough, so they made a new, almost ghostly white color. Marketing this specific color to darker skinned people will likely not net many sales. It seems intuitive that pale colored makeup would sell best if advertised to pale colored people, and the same goes for darker hues.

• Some companies are founded by and for people of a specific race. Their sales, while not exclusive, or racist in nature, are made up primarily of that race. Companies frequently have to pay every time their ad is shown, and thus would prefer it is only shown to people who are likely to click it. If a company sells “BLACK LIVES MATTER” tshirts, and analytics reveal that most of their customers are black, advertizing to white people could be seen as a waste of money. A company founded by a native american to sell native american style things, and celebrate their culture should be allowed to target native americans based on race in their ad campaign if they can prove that most of their customers are of native american heritage.

Next. Why can he not answer simple questions like “Can facebook track users even when they arent’t logged in?” Because these are not simple questions. They are very complex questions, with many implications for wrong answers. Can they track nonlogged in users? Yes. Anybody with a computer, a website, and a few free hours could. The question was meant to be “DOES facebook track nonlogged in users?” Do they? Well, it can be complicated. When a company has grown to the size of facebook, acquired services like instagram, uses google analytics and advertisers, allows people to sign into other services or leave comments on other sites using facebook, eventually tracking people, even accidentally can and will happen. Zuckerberg is not avoiding the questions. He just wants to answer accurately, and 5 minutes per question may not be enough to do that for questions he wasn’t prepared for. This is not a defense of facebook. I would like to not be tracked, but cookies, html local storage, partner services, location data, etc. can make it hard to tell when tracking does or doesn’t happen. These “simple” questions aren’t so simple after all.

Closing points: There was a lot of talk about regulating Facebook. After watching the hearings, I don’t believe these people should be allowed to regulate Facebook because they don’t understand what it does. I do not believe any regulations they would create could solve any problems better than industry leaders in Silicon Valley. In fact, these regulations may even harm their ability to regulate themselves and cause more issues.