Facebook has the power of a nation state, but is it living up to its moral responsibilities, asks a former CNN bureau chief Rebecca MacKinnon
You have referred to Mark Zuckerberg as the Sultan of Facebookistan. What did you mean?
Sovereignty and power are shifting. Before the internet, these notions were controlled by nation states. But companies like Facebook are the sovereigns of cyberspace. Facebook exercises power by shaping the way you interact with the world. It makes decisions about what you can do and not do on its network. And there are only a few countries in the world where Facebook is not the most popular social network.
Is this really a problem? Isn't Facebook just a neat way to keep up to date with friends?
That's not how the activists who brought down the Egyptian regime saw it. Facebook was a useful tool for galvanising anger against the regime. But in November 2010, on the eve of a demonstration, one of their key pages was removed. Why? Because the page's administrators were using a pseudonym, which is against Facebook's terms of service. Fortunately they managed to get the page transferred to a US-based activist willing to use her real name. But that was lucky. The bigger problem is that Facebook and other global networks are setting rules that are ultimately based on commercial considerations, not on the rights and civil liberties of users.
Yet people are free to leave if they don't like the rules that Facebook sets.
A lot of people are on Facebook even though they are uncomfortable with its practices and policies. I have spoken with activists from authoritarian countries who say that Facebook's habit of making changes to privacy settings endangers people. Iranian activists, for example, felt particularly exposed by a rule change the network made in 2009, when it suddenly made public the list of friends that each user has. Even so, many feel they have to be on Facebook. If you're an activist you have to be where the people are.
Do you think Facebook appreciates its power?
Mark Zuckerberg has an ideology that's very clear. He believes the world should be open and transparent, and that what you do on the internet should be clearly linked to your physical identity - if you aren't open about who you are and what you are doing, you lack integrity. Tell that to activists in Egypt and Iran, or to women fleeing an abusive spouse. The rules of Facebook are based on how Zuckerberg thinks society should be, not how it is.
What would you like to say to Zuckerberg?
I'd ask him to have Facebook join the Global Network Initiative. Companies who join commit to a core set of human rights principles and work with the human rights community to figure out how to conduct business in a way that is consistent with privacy and freedom of expression, and how not to become unwitting or witting parties of government oppression. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft have all joined. They are not getting everything right by any means, but at least they recognise the responsibilities that come along with their power and have made a public commitment to be held accountable.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Subscribe now to comment.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
weather los angeles caleb hanie bcs standings 2011 rhodes scholarship rhodes scholarship ufc 139 results lee corso
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.