Andrews vs. Pariser

In The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You, Eli Pariser argues the recent push for a more personalized Internet may not necessarily be in the best interest of Internet users, society or the Internet.  Similar to Lori Andrews' book I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did, Pariser attempts to warn his reader about the hidden aspects of the Internet.  The perspective of each author is very strong and convincing, however, they do differ in the focus and breadth of their argument.

Andrews' main goal is to develop a Social Networking Constitution.  She relays story after story and lays out case after case about how social networks are getting away with stealing your information and not protecting your privacy.  I feel her main approach is to scare her reader into taking action.  She has a lot of examples about how a Social Network could be used for opportunistic reasons not only by the site itself but also by its users.  Although she mainly argues about the ills of Social Networking, the topic does allow her to touch on what she see are the more broader issues with Internet security as a whole.  Her arguments are sound and her examples are enlightening, however, I feel her approach is too “doomsday-esk”.  

Pariser, on the other hand, focuses on the personalization of the Internet creating what he calls the “filter bubble”.  His main focus is to point out web giants like Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft are in a race to gain as much information about you as possible in order for them to gain as much money as possible. (Intro)  In the meantime, those same companies are creating an Internet that defeats its original purpose; to make available information and opportunities to the masses.  The “filter bubble”, created by using algorithms to produce ads and information which are most similar to what we have looked in the past, “fundamentally alters the way we encounter ideas and information”, argues Pariser. (Intro)  Pariser’s main point is that the Internet is being changed by companies who are in a personal data race and as consumers we are sacrificing what makes the Internet great; openness and freedom.  

The perspective Pariser argues, I feel, is of a much greater concern than that of Andrews when it comes to the future students I will teach.  From the standpoint of necessity, social networks are not as important as the sanctity of the Internet as a whole.  With social networking, a user can always choose to post or not to post, to connect or not to connect.  The user has power, all be it limited, to decide what he or she will or will not share with the rest of the world or to even have an account on a social site or not.  However, with what Pariser calls the filter bubble, there is no choice at all at this point.  He rightly points out with the filter bubble you are alone in it, it is invisible and you do not choose to enter the bubble.  (Intro)  To me, that is more scary than any of the examples and cases Andrews points out.  For my students, I would rather them have the ability to be exposed to the entire Internet and not just the one that was personalized just for them, limiting the information and experiences they are exposed to.

The Social Network Constitution

In her book, "I Know Who You are and I Saw What You Did", Lori Andrews outlines the need for a Social Network Constitution.  Throughout the book, Andrews relays stories about how users of social networks (and the Internet in general) have had their rights trampled on due to the lack of protections.  She argues for a viable way to protect the digital self that is becoming more and more prominent as the use of the Internet grows.  Andrews encapsulates these protections in what she calls the Social Network Constitution.

After reading through many of the examples of individual rights being abused (Harriton High School case in chapter 8), individuals getting away with questionable behavior on websites (Melchert-Dinkel case in chapter 7), and websites using questionable means(craigslist.org in chapter 7) to discriminate against a particular group, it is easy to see there needs to be a better way to preserve the freedoms that living in a free society allows even in the digital world.  Andrews' idea of a Social Network Constitution is a very reasonable solution to what has amounted mass confusion and inconsistencies when it comes to digital protections.  Andrews understands that there is a fine balance between privacy rights and freedom of expression.  I agree when she states that the right to free speech and freedom of expression should not be infringed upon unless the speech incites serious, imminent harm or defames a private individual.  Just like someone can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, nor should someone be able to convince somebody to commit suicide in a chat room and get away with it (like the Melchert-Dinkel case) just because of physicality.

As a teacher, I feel the most important element of the Social Network Constitution proposed by Andrews is the Right to Connect.  Today, more than ever, being able to gain access to the vast amount of information on the Internet is critical for "individual growth, political discourse, and social interchange".  I know it wasn't that long ago when email was not a communication option, but could you imagine not having email today?  Can you imagine being cut off from a digital world where knowledge about anything is just a click away?  As a teacher, not having access to that vast world of resources and tools would greatly hinder my ability to do my job effectively.  That's why I think it is critical to include wording like no government shall abridge the right to connect, nor shall a government monitor exchanges over the internet or code them as to sources or content."

For students, who seem to share information, especially about themselves, more freely and without fear of consequence on the Internet, I believe it is inevitable to protect the right to Control One's Image.  Although Andrews list them as separate rights, I feel the right to Control One's Image encompasses the right to Privacy of Thoughts, Emotions and Sentiments and Place and Information..  Everyone, needs to feel like the information they share online is not going to be used without their knowledge or prior consent.  I agree that social networks should be considered private places and just like someone can not come into your home and take things to use against you without a warrant, the same should apply to data shared on social networks.  Andrews discusses (and there are many other examples found with a quick Google search) several cases where employees, including teachers, have been dismissed for items they shared on a social network which were thought to be private.  Andrews points out in chapter nine that "leaks in social network information has led to people divorcing, being fired, being denied admission to college, and committing suicide."  Andrews goes on to point out that many admission offices will look at an applicant's social site account and 38% of the time it reflects negatively on the candidate.  Even a third of employers, according to a CareerBuilder study said they would hire someone who has photos with a drink in their hand or dressed provocatively. (Ch. 9)  With that in mind, students need to be more aware of the consequences of sharing and posting online in a world where social networks are NOT considered private.  More importantly, to protect students and their future, it is inevitable to establish a set of rules where individuals are free to share online without the worry of what they post will be used adversely against them in the future.

The other (scary) uses of Facebook

This week, I started reading "I Know Who You Are and I Saw What You Did" by Lori Andrews.  She starts off the book by discussing Facebook and how is has basically become a nation all unto itself.  This was a new way to view Facebook for me.  Facebook has over 750 million members which makes it the third most populated nation on the face of the earth.  With that many members comes a great amount of power and influence.  It is easy to see why so many people are drawn to the idea of Facebook and other social networks.  As humans, we are very social beings.  Facebook and other social networks like it allow us to seek out like minded individuals to share our ideas, values and whatever else you can think of.  The problem that arises is that perhaps sometimes we can share too much information.  With this in mind, others, including government agencies, have come up with some pretty creative ways to use Facebook and they are not always good.

Posting information about yourself on your social network can be fun and exciting and help you stay in touch with the ones you love.  However, posting all that information could lead to some dangerous situations.  Andrews (in chapter one) relays several different ways in which criminals have used Facebook to plan and commit crimes based on what others have posted on their Facebook page.  Some criminals peruse Facebook to see which users have "Vacation" listed as their status making them easy targets for a robbery.  One hostage taker even had the audacity to broadcast is crime while in progress using Facebook postings to communicate with friends who where watching the scene play out from across the street.  One "friend" of the hostage taker even warned him that the Swat team was hiding behind a bush just outside his window.

Criminals are not the only ones who are using what you post on Facebook for purposes that you may not be aware of.  There is definitely a sense that what you post on Facebook should be private and only to been seen by those you want to see it.  However, that is not always the case.  Police units have been known to use what they see on someone's Facebook page against them.  Unlike searching your home, where police need a warrant, there is nothing that says police can not view a page, see some criminal activity and use that against the Facebook poster.  In one case (chapter one), police saw photos of underage students with red plastic cups in hand indicating underage drinking and used those photos to prosecute the parents of the house for providing alcohol to minors.  The U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services recommends to its' field workers to "befriend" their clients on Facebook so they can monitor their relationships and determine if a couple may be trying to mislead them about their relationship.

There are probably hundreds of different cases where things that were posted on Facebook and other networks, that were thought to be private, have led to unintended consequences.  One teacher was fired because a friend tagged her in a photo with her holding two glasses of alcohol.  (Click here for other examples)  The point is this.  Facebook and other social networks are great ways to develop social relationships with others like you.  However, there are many kinks about this new media that still need to be worked out.  There is not one definitive set of rules guiding everyone about the uses and abuses of Facebook.  As we have seen, even law enforcement has been known to use tactics that seem to "conflict with traditional due process rights and the principle that citizens should be free from constant scrutiny." (chapter one)  Until a more definitive set of rules and guidelines can be developed governing the use of these social networks, users including teachers, parents and students alike need to be aware that what they are posting on Facebook is not as private as one might think.  Andrews warns that unless peoples' rights are protected, (she argues for a Social Network Constitution) these social networks may lead us to just the opposite of what they were intended to do which is to expand people's behaviors and opportunities.  Until then, it will be up to the individual user to determine what they are comfortable posting of social networks.  Be sure to read all the fine print!