Facebook, Google, and Microsoft are hiring many employees who worked in Washington as an attempt to create and maintain a friendly relationship with those who have the authority to question the private policies that these websites have. Facebook is not being particular about which party or which administration their employees once worked for, they're simply looking to get in. Regardless of what qualities these people have to work within the confines of a social networking site, they are hired to save facebook's ass if ever in a private policy jam (NOW). Among the people working for facebook that were and still are closely connected to Washington are: Sheryl Sandberg , Ted Ullyot, Robert Gibbs.
I can't help but to think that the relationship that is being created between Facebook and Washington is similar to the relationship that newspapers and television news broadcasting networks have with the government. There are journalists within the government, and the closer that they are with government officials, their access to information increases. On the other hand if the Washington keeps a close relationship with reporters and news broadcasting companies, make appearances, have their own thirty minute shows etc., they have the ability to set the agenda. It seems to be a win-win situation for everyone except for the consumers. Although Facebook is not a news broadcasting network by any means, information, news (hard and soft) makes its way through. Media evolves over time, the death of the hard print newspapers has opened up a door for the internet world. Just as more people prefer to watch prime television than the evening news, more people browse through Facebook than an online news media outlet. Just as some people rely on Facebook to get important information, some feel responsible for delivering the news themselves.
In a Seattle Times Article, the author wrote about the privacy concerns the FTC expressed about Facebook’s applications and how some of them (like the “like” application) are used in marketing schemes to see consumer preferences and trends. If the private information we provide to Facebook is being used for marketing tactics, I can only imagine how it can be used or has been used for elections.
As media has evolved over so have elections; they went from word of mouth, to newspapers, to television news broadcasting networks, to entertainment talk shows, blogs, and even social networking sites. It is possible that the politicians will learn to use a website like Facebook, which has faults in its private policy and use these faults to their advantages to advertise their campaign in the correct way. If they are able to use the “like” application on the site to see who their supporters are and what they are consuming, politicians will be able to target their audiences more directly. This would make it easier for them to influence the public in a more precise way; using personal information that is deemed private.
Building a false relationship with followers would be easier for politicians because information about their audience is easily accessible to them (whether or not it’s against the right to privacy). The 2004 Dean campaign was successful at building a façade for their audience by the use of their blog. The Dean campaign set a precedent for future campaigns. It emphasized the importance of a relationship between the politicians, their audience, and new means of communication (internet/blogs). With Facebook representatives lobbying in Washington, and with Washington interested in following their personal agendas, there is really no hope for the promised privacy we anticipate when setting up our Faceboooks.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/03/29/134953714/facebook-google-battle-for-obama-washington-supremacy
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/technology/29facebook.html?pagewanted=1&src=un&feedurl=http://json8.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.jsonp
The relationship with Washington seems to be a more symbolic one, because the government officials are supposed to be more trusted than entertainment websites. The hiring of Washington officials is supposed to put people at ease when it comes to privacy concerns. But are the government officials not the ones being lobbied by these big advertising companies? I am sure that now the privacy of the Facebook users will be more endangered and exposed to advertising companies who set up profiles for individual users in order to boost sales.But with the Washington officials regulating these privacy policy options, everything will just LOOK more legit. There will be no "tighter privacy rules", its just a make up and people should look out for their privacy more by keeping private things private instead of posting them on FB and later complaining about it.
ReplyDeleteI can understand Google and Microsoft having hands in Washington,they have always had that stronghold over there.But Facebook? It seems Facebook is trying take over more than my cousin's life.It is almost like they are preparing or arming themselves with these ex-Washington members to prepare for a fight in the future.
ReplyDeleteFacebook would not be the first company to do so. Every major corporation in the United States have employed lobbyist to make their case in Washington. Facebook is simply following that model, to ease pressure and government interference regarding privacy concerns. As we can see nothing is new in the game of politics when corporations are involved. What was done in the past is simply being repeated again and again.
ReplyDeleteYup, just another example of the buddy system. Just as in Rawn's AT&T blog, get the Washington insiders on your side. As for the privacy concerns, well, from a business aspect it's a smart idea to team up with Washington. For the average Facebook user, it is unfortunate that even adjusting your privacy settings doesn't mean much, as our information can still be leaked to advertisers, but by this point, anyone using the site should be aware that nothings really ever 'private'.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting topic, but I think you will need to do some more to make the media a more central part of the post. Right now, the piece seems to focus predominantly on lobbying, which is what Facebook is doing by hiring these former government employees and fostering their relationships with Congress. You need to bring in a course concept here that will emphasize the media angle, and it seems you do make an effort to do this in the next to last paragraph, but the example you cite does not fit well here. You in fact point out that it does not fit, by noting Facebook is not a news organization. This is an intriguing point: "If the information we provide to facebook is being used now for marketing tactics, I can only imagine how it can be used or has been used for elections" but you would need to go further to explain exactly what you are talking about here, what kinds of tactics you might foresee, and so forth. Putting your links into the content of the post would also be a great improvement.
ReplyDelete