Plague Journal, Contra Facebook
In a speech on January 28th at Brussels’ International Privacy Day, Tim Cook CEO of Apple had this to say. Here is an excerpt from his speech:
“Technology does not need vast troves of personal data stitched together across dozens of websites and apps in order to succeed. Advertising existed and thrived for decades without it, and we’re here today because the path of least resistance is rarely the path of wisdom.
If a business is built on misleading users on data exploitation, on choices that are no choices at all, then it does not deserve our praise. It deserves reform.
We should not look away from the bigger picture and a moment of rampant disinformation and conspiracy theory is juiced by algorithms. We can no longer turn a blind eye to a theory of technology that says all engagement is good engagement, the longer the better, and all with the goal of collecting as much data as possible.
Too many are still asking the question, ‘How much can we get away with?’ When they need to be asking, ‘What are the consequences?’
What are the consequences of prioritizing conspiracy theories and violent incitement simply because of the high rates of engagement?
What are the consequences of not just tolerating but rewarding content that undermines public trust in life-saving vaccinations?
What are the consequences of seeing thousands of users joining extremist groups and then perpetuating an algorithm that recommends even more?
It is long past time to stop pretending that this approach doesn’t come with a cause. A polarization of lost trust, and yes, of violence.
A social dilemma cannot be allowed to become a social catastrophe.”
Tim Cook, reveals himself to be quite the philosopher in this speech which takes dead aim at Facebook. I highlighted the phrases that struck me with an economy of force, describing the business model of Facebook, and it’s socially destructive consequences. Moral Squalor, a phrase coined by John W. Gardner, describes a company that derives benefit from exploiting the customer. The term is also apt for a society which countenances such a company.
Cook observes, a surface which reveals a path of least resistance, is not usually a “path of wisdom.” Easy and convenient often conceals a nasty, destructive real.
Cook echos the old philosophical dilemma: freedom or determinism. Can I begin to doubt that I am free, that there’s “no charge” to the marvelous convenience and reach of my Facebook page(s)? If it feels free – can it be otherwise? The age old conundrum reverberates. To repudiate feelings as prima facie evidence in order to to take data seriously, as a pointer to truth.
The Facebook profit mill operates by algorithmic driven content that compels duration of engagement, while hoovering up reams of data derived from it’s customers. Cook castigates a theory of technology offering itself as morally neutral: all engagement is good engagement.
Cook interrogates the moral dimensions of that theory. Is any theory morally neutral? Let me pick a really arcane theory, the ransom theory going back to St. Anselm of Canterbury. That is the idea that Jesus died in your place, he substituted as payment in your stead, so that you could go scott-free of the consequences of your moral failures, (sins). The ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card. Seems like a good deal doesn’t it? Actually it isn’t. To benefit you’d have to belong to an institution, the church, which would define your life. Much as Facebook has done for so many.
When anything is publicized as “free,” the predictable conclusion is, “How much can we get away with?” How far can we run with this?
Philosophically several conclusions can be made. There is no morally neutral theory. All theories have consequences for human well-being, beneficial and deleterious consequences. What were and are the consequences arising from E=MC²?
IF we desire to have a humane society we must ask over and over as Tim Cook does in his speech:
What are the consequences,
what are the consequences,
what are the consequences?
— A social dilemma cannot be allowed to become a social catastrophe.
To read the entire Inc Magazine article on Tim Cook’s speech CLICK HERE.
2 thoughts on “Plague Journal, Contra Facebook”
Todays missive bring up the perennial question of the consequences of an individual’s rights to free speech as expressed in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution along with the privacy guaranteed to all (ostensibly). In yesterday’s meeting with our Congressman I asked a question regarding this topic. When do the protections offered by the 1st Amendment become so counter-productive that the use of Free Speech can undo the very document that guarantees our freedoms. His reply was that those who hide nefarious intent under the banner of free speech must be held accountable for what they say. The old adage is that one is not allowed to yell “fire” in a crowded theater just for the hell of it. That does not fall under the protection of Freedom of Speech, therefore those who foment insurrection or call for the dismantling of the government or threaten the lives and safety of others cannot hide behind the 1st Amendment.
I realize that Mr. Cook’s treatise is more about keeping personal information private, but this all rolls into the same argument, “What can someone (or some corporation) use or say that does not impinge on the Constitutional protections of an individual or company?” The bottom line is that we will need legislation passed (and very soon) that will hold people accountable for their words while allowing everyone to protect their privacy. We have seen this train coming down the tracks ever since the first email was sent out or the first shopper made on online purchase, but legislators have been reluctant to take on the lobbyists for the businesses that reap profits from reading your intimate online communications.
Perhaps equating advertising with insurrection is stepping too far out on a limb, but to me they are connected at the hip, both furthered along by our lack of stringent rules dealing with cyberspace. Perhaps a cabinet level position should be created such as the Department of Internet Communication to regulate the plethora of misinformation and shady advertising anyone with a computer has to deal with on a regular basis. Just a thought.
More than a thought.
Congress does not appear to have the stomach for any kind of law-making. The Courts and the Supreme Court have been packed to blunt legislative efforts to curb the right-wing base.