Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to GPRL 6202 Group Presentation
Similar to GPRL 6202 Group Presentation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
GPRL 6202 Group Presentation
- 1. Chapter Three: Facebook and the Imperative of Sharing Elizabeth Engram, Denise Hauta, Jessica Gillis, Kate Dubinski, and Stacey de Molitor
- 2. Introduction
- 3. Transparency: Users vs. Owners according to van Dijck, Facebook says “Share your personal information with us, but don’t ask us what we’re going to do with it!” owners use users; users use owners the inequality lies in the degree of transparency from each side
- 4. Friending and Liking Facebook has changed the meaning of friendship and liking. We often define friends as FB friends or real friends ‘Liking’ is a form of sharing & provides important data to third parties without the user’s knowledge
- 5. Why doesn’t anyone care? Because of social capital.
- 7. Facebook is THE social network experience
- 8. Facebook is “Sharing” Facebook’s Double meaning of “sharing” The first principle marks one user’s right to connect to another and to exchange data “as long as they both consent to the connection” The second actually undermines the platform’s own declaration that people should “own their info.” and should have the freedom to “set privacy controls to protect those choices”.
- 9. Facebook’s Business Model Facebook has created a balancing act between stimulating users’ activity and exploiting it (van Dijck)
- 10. A Cultural Shift Welcome to the World of Facebook Sharing? One-to-one vs one-to-all
- 11. Digital Clout Liking gives emotional power Number of friends = power Social badge of honour
- 12. Sharing: At What Expense? Privacy vs Public Information Who has rights? Growing Facebook Resistance
- 13. More Alternatives New online services New platforms Not cool anymore! No one, or no platform, is safe in the digital landscape.
- 14. Facebook’s Vision Facebook is “a fabric that can make any experience online social.” A platform in which others can build. How much power is too much?
- 15. The author’s argument Facebook is a business Facebook doesn’t like you (but it loves your information) Facebook isn’t your friend Facebook is a business Facebook doesn’t like you (but it loves your information) Facebook isn’t your friend
- 16. But why? The author’s objective We’ve become complicit Shake things up a bit There’s no escape
- 17. Van Dijik’s methodology Chronology Technology
- 18. More methodology Using Facebook against Facebook
- 19. This is only the beginning… Facebook: “a balancing act between stimulating users’ activity and exploiting it” (p. 25). A world powered by Facebook
- 20. Intellectual reaction What do you think? Is there any turning back? Can you turn back?
Editor's Notes
- van Dijck shows us how Facebook has changed the meaning of sharing and privacy, and has set the standard for cultural and societal norms regarding sharing and privacy across all SNSs. As an example, FB applications allow us to share across multiple SNSs simply by posting on FB. This increases social capital, but in reality we don’t know how our information is being shared with third parties.
- van Dijck cites Facebook as saying that they want to make the world a more transparent place, but she says that what they really mean is that they want their users to be more transparent and to share more personal information. Facebook, however, has no intention of being transparent about what they’re doing with our information. The issue is that user activity is transparent, but owner activity is not.
- The algorithms behind the ‘Like’ button extend the action of ‘liking’ beyond the platform of FB, unbeknownst to the user, which has radically changed the norms for sharing personal data with a third party. FB is not transparent about this use of data.
- van Dijck’s description of how FB has impacted sharing aligns with our group discussion of how our social media use has changed over the past ten years. As FB has implemented ways to encourage users to share more personal information, we have changed the ways in which we use FB. Some of us use the platform to further grow our social capital and cultivate a personal brand, while others have reduced usage.
- As we’ve previously discussed SNS have become popular only over the past decade and this new way of socializing, networking and communicating has been a learning curve for users and owners alike. Facebook was one of many in the early days but has since become the preferred brand, as Van dijck argues.
- Becoming THE preferred social networking site has not come without it’s challenges; including attempts by Google to dethrone them with Google + and multiple lawsuits and complaints from users about its’ privacy issues.
- Van dijck argues that this has been one of Facebook’s biggest points of contention with users: it’s ambiguous use of the term “sharing”. While the company expects transparency and openness from its’ users, the relationship seems to be one-sided with the company de-emphasizing its interest in commercial exploitation of its users.
- Yet even with all of these issues Facebook has managed to weather the storms by creating a business model that is a delicate balancing act between stimulating users’ activity and exploiting it, building a large and loyal enough member base that it could test which values would render the site most profitable.
- van Dijik’s main point is that Facebook has created an entire cultural shift in how we socialize. There has been a complete acceptance by society to incorporate SNS into our everyday lives. Instead of “sharing” with one-on-one, we now share one-to-all. Buttons to share have been build into everything online (news content, shopping, employment sites, games)
- This social sharing, liking, and friending have become extremely powerful in our culture. We consider people who are well connected as have digital clout. As PR professionals, these individuals are also attractive to us for their connectedness.
- However, he also points out that we might be forfeiting our individual rights at the expense of this digital power. He points out an argument that’s been made in the corporate world about rights to privacy. We already share a great deal about ourselves online, so why can’t potential employers or businesses we buy from, not have access to that information as we? Many potential employers are now asking job applicants to share their profile names and SNS as a way to do background checks. These privacy issues are leading to more individuals who are considered “Facebook Resisters”. These people worry about privacy and many have launched lawsuits against owners of the SNS because of a lack of standards.
- The market is responding to the issues surrounding privacy. Van Dijik points out that there are new services offering alternatives to people. Facebook could be vulnerable if these privacy issues continue to grow and people move away from the platform to other alternatives.
- The goal is to make everything online social. Facebook’s vision is really just to be the platform in which others can build. The concern van Dijik has is that if we allow Facebook to create the norms of online society, then are we not in fact giving Facebook all the power?
- Van Dijik’s principal argument is that Facebook is a business that has changed the very way we talk about social interactions, who we view as friends, and what we share. It has changed our vocabulary and how we interact with each other and with information with each other. It has made sharing our lives an imperative, to its own multi-billion-dollar advantage.
- The author’s objective is to shake the reader out of the comfort zone. As you leisurely scroll through your timeline, click on a story to read from CNN, or like a friend’s photo, Facebook is collecting it’s data. That much many people know. But it’s also collecting your information when you go online to buy a shirt from The Gap, order a case study from the Ivey School of Business and sing your kid up for summer soccer. Van Dijik’s objective is to make the reader realize that Facebook has changed the game.
- Van Dijik’s methodology is to show take us through a chronology of Facebook’s attempts at ad building and low privacy settings to arrive at today. Facebook, through a series of (sometimes failed, or rather stalled) attempts, has encroached more and more on the privacy of its users, who have allowed the encroachment because societal norms have changed. It now feels normal for giant corporations to have access to our data, so natural, we barely bat an eye. Much of that normalization is because of Facebook itself, the author argues. Van Kijike’s also explains the exact technology that Facebook has used and uses to get us to give up our data. For example, Facebook changed our Timelines and we become more emotionally tied to the stuff we see on Facebook, starting with our births. We are emotionally tied to it, and therefore less likely to look critically at the platform. That manipulation is actually built into the code and technology, also allowing Facebook to gather more data from its users.
- Along with scholarly articles, Van Dijik uses Facebook as a primary source for his argument, from press releases to interviews with Marc Zuckerburg. Essentially, the author uses Facebook’s own words against itself to show that it’s trying to use users’ sharing (and therefore data) to further its own goals. Van Dijik also uses Facebook’s many technologies, landing on Open Graph, which has allowed the company to gather user data from pages with Like buttons, something most are not likely aware of. By taking us through a chronology of Facebook’s APIs and other technological advances, the author is also using Facebook itself to further his argument.
- Facebook has revolutionalized the way we speak and interact, and with whom. Although some people are revolting against Facebook’s encroachment into our daily lives, it has changed enough of our daily life that there is no turning back. At the end of his chapter, he says, and I quote “It’s ideology has spread so deeply into the pores of online sociality that its newspeak and mantras will reverberate for a long time.” He adds “if the world lets Facebook define the norms for online sociality, it will build a world powered by Facebook.”
- What do you think? FB says its mission is to make the world more connected and increase transparency. Transparency in the corporate world is a good thing, in the sense that an organization becomes subject to public scrutiny, which encourages honest behavior. The sharing of private data with corporations has significant social and cultural implications. Facebook has changed our norms of sharing. Van Dijik has shown that when FB makes changes to improve user experience, there is usually something else going on in the background – something that allows them to see more of our information. But is there any turning back, for us as a society or for you as an individual? What do you think?