As IF Times

Source: Mark Zuckerberg Testimony: A Critical Test for Facebook – The New York Times

Watching the current testimony of Mark Zuckerberg in front of a Congressional panel on Facebook’s activities is a bit like watching a bunch of seniors asking a PhD student about string theory.   It’s obvious that the Facebook CEO is giving condescending and patronizing answers to people who are asking political questions rather than probing for real fact discovery.  The greatest laugh he has on them is that during his testimony, the stock rose enough to enrich him by $3 billion dollars!  Boy they sure showed him.

That there is any outrage over the leaks of individuals’ private data exists only because there is a tenuous link to the possibility of a chance of maybe helping to bring about Donald Trump’s election.  As we all know, employment of such data mining techniques by parties partisan to the previous President were hailed as genius.  The root of the outrage is not so much about the abuse of mined data, it’s more about who got to benefit from it.

As usual, the threat of government regulation of companies such as Facebook have been raised as a means of curtailing ‘abuses’.  Sure, that’s what’s needed here, more laws.  Somehow, the encompassing sense of entitlement that has taken root in Western culture extends even to Facebook,  an entirely free platform for which nobody is forcefully compelled to participate.  However, in participating, people voluntarily offer their most personal information and proclivities for the world to see and presumably expecting the same from others.  Facebook is a brilliant invention which captures that large segment of the population whom are exhibitionists, voyeurs or both.   To their credit, Facebook made a business out of it and a very big one at that.  But now, there are all kinds of expectations on what this free service should provide or be responsible for.  It’s like going to a free public toilet and demanding that it be supplied with toilet paper.

Zuckerberg for his part, has been disingenuous with the description of his company.  His comments regarding Facebook content makes liberal use of the word ‘community’ to describe Facebook users.  In fact, they have armies of people who are charged with filtering out those that don’t fit their views of what’s acceptable in their community.  So it’s an inclusive community, as long as you fit their definition of community.

As long as Facebook is not deemed to be a public utility, they can do whatever they want and to treat customers as they see fit.  The hysteria surrounding their business practices will subside.  Satisfied users will stay; unhappy ones will leave.  The recent publicity that Facebook has garnered has served an important function however.  It exposes the reality behind their business model and perhaps into the models of many other internet and social media companies. People get something for free, meanwhile, the business owners become billionaires.  Why is there surprise?

Source: Facebook, Texas, China: Your Thursday Briefing – The New York Times

The recent Facebook drama has underscored the most sinister disease afflicting modern society.  E and O.  No, not Errors and Omissions, that boilerplate notice at the bottom of legal documents, I’m referring to Entitlement and Outrage, the drivers of most of the sensationalist news we see today.

A casual check of the day’s headlines will list various stories of someone’s imagined offences against accepted sensibilities, or of some concocted notion of a denied right.  Stories of people actually having their rights taken away, ie by being killed, are far less newsworthy than those concerning the horrific plight of those offended by an unfortunate choice of words.  It’s as if the entire population had been lulled into believing as children do, that fantasy trumps reality.

Look at the highly irrational debate on guns and gun rights.  While this is a topic for another discussion, there exists among many, a highly illogical view of guns.  For example, most of us have seen those decals affixed to the entrance of public buildings indicating no guns allowed on premises.  By implication, this means that the building is safe from guns. If this elegantly simple solution works, why not use the same idea and post “do not rob” signs on banks and 7-Elevens?

The recent outrage de jour is directed at Facebook, because apparently, data collected  from and freely submitted by users has been revealed to have been used for nefarious purposes;  apparently to help elect Donald Trump.  Some of us may recall that when the employment of social media techniques were used during the last president’s campaigns, it was characterized as innovative and brilliant.  But in the current context, people are outraged that their top secret images of cats, kids  and selfies at vacation spots and ‘dear diary’ entries are vulnerable to be used for commercial purposes!  Somehow, rights have been breached!

Let’s be objective and sane for a moment: People get a ‘service’ for free, Zuckerburg becomes a billionaire.  Wonder if there’s a connection there.  It’s like getting sandwiches for free and then complaining about the lack of mustard.

If only there was a way to prevent people’s personal stuff from being be pried into, spied upon and sold for financial gain; if only we could stop posting…if only there was an off button….hmm.   To stop using social media is of course, not an option.  Social media, internet access and NFL Redzone are now seen as rights. People now feel entitled to figuratively stand on their front lawns in their underwear and expect others not to look.  Mark Zuckerburg for his part, has been cowed by the indignant crowd by conceding that Facebook had failed their users.  Apologizing is a popular thing these days, whether genuine or not.  What he should have said was, “What did you expect for free? We’re not in the free lunch business.  If you want security, use paper.”