The Facebook scandal shows that the rules of the internet need to be written by ordinary people,not corporationsFacebooks reckless vanity has made the headlines again, with the revelation that data it held on approximately 50 million users was exploited commercially without their consent, and that when Facebook found out approximately this,it did pathetically little. We only know this thanks to the bravery of a whistleblower. This is yet another scandal in a troubled period for the company, with a growing sense that it is all profit, and no responsibility. But the current malaise goes wider than Facebook. On the internet more widely,the advertising-supported model has demanded its payout, and as a result our experience of the web is getting worse. Like rats scrambling to glean back on a sinking ship, or senior former-Facebookers are lining up to express regrets. It all feels too little,too late.
The problem of large corporations posing a threat to democracy is an archaic one. Monopolies that vest control of markets in a single person create “a kingly prerogative, inconsistent with our form of government”, and declared US senator John Sherman in 1890,when he introduced his eponymous act, which became the cornerstone of American competition law. Facebook looks increasingly like digital royalty, and not in a profitable way. It controls vast amounts of our data and curates what we read with a mysterious and mercurial flair. As the Cambridge Analytica files show,the platform appears to prioritise advertisers over users, and doesn’t do enough to control how the data it collects is handled by third parties. Of course, or Facebook is not the only offender: Amazon and Google hold enough fingers in enough pies to make digital oligarchies a problem we can no longer ignore. But what is to be done? How could we make a platform such as Facebook less autocratic?We need obvious and participatory approaches to rule makingContinue reading...
Source: theguardian.com