Cryptocurrency
Libra: Is Facebook’s Reputation Too Much to Overcome?
Looking Back at 2019 The year 2019 was chock-full of Bitcoin related news. We saw it in the form of various governments attempting to deploy digital currencies and global institutions attempting to revolutionize finance. Some failed and some succeeded, but in the end they all influenced the way the world looks at Bitcoin. China and […]
Looking Back at 2019
The year 2019 was chock-full of Bitcoin related news. We saw it in the form of various governments attempting to deploy digital currencies and global institutions attempting to revolutionize finance. Some failed and some succeeded, but in the end they all influenced the way the world looks at Bitcoin. China and Facebook are two major entities that are currently attempting to branch into the blockchain space and are being met with very similar issues. The public has been less-than-receptive of handing over even more data to these incredibly powerful institutions, and for good reason.
A New Way of Doing Business
In this day and age, essentially every major tech company in the world is now in the business of accumulating data. Facebook is certainly no exception, and they are looking to expand their depth of information by branching into the financial sector. Although what Mark Zuckerberg asserts about Libra may be true, there is no doubt that the prospect of aggregating even more data was considered when they were designing the project. Unfortunately for Facebook, the public has not forgotten their past exploitations of personal data and genuinely cares about the protection of their privacy.
The Importance of Privacy
Privacy on social media has been a topical issue for quite awhile now, and one thing that I hear often during the debate is, “I have nothing to hide, so I don’t care if Facebook violates my privacy.” For some, this is merely a chance to seamlessly work the pristine nature of their character into conversation without seeming conceited. However, many others genuinely believe that they have nothing to hide and it is acceptable for Facebook to do whatever they wish with the data provided when users make an account. What is often not considered when arriving at this conclusion is the affect your data may have when conglomerated with the data of millions of others. Your personal information begins to paint a picture; a picture consisting of many details like your age, race, socioeconomic status, and even political affiliations. This picture is of immense value to large companies and political campaigns. They are able to carry out more strategic marketing strategies, which ultimately gives them more ability to influence public opinion. This is already a very real problem, as Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg found out when he was accused of selling information to UK-based political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. According to the New York Times, the firm mined information about what individuals had “liked” and what their friend networks looked like in order to create personality schematics, allegedly for the purpose of influencing voter decisions in the 2016 presidential election. “Facebook data … was the foundational data set of the company,” Christopher Wylie, the whistle-blower of the case, told members of the British Parliament. “That is how the algorithms were developed.”
Quote Source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?443189-1/cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-casts-doubt-brexit-result
Now for a second imagine that Facebook had access to the financial records of every one of their users; this would substantially increase the amount of influence and power they have and make them an incredibly appealing marketing tool. On the surface, this may just seem like a harmless tactic that is necessary to get ahead in the modern political and business world but in reality the implications are much greater. These algorithms could be used for forms of discrimination that are currently inconceivable. In many ways, the internet is still the Wild West and the laws governing it are constantly evolving. We as consumers must take concrete steps to ensure the protection of our data, and this needs to be done now before companies and political groups have the chance to get their foot in the door. We cannot allow companies like Facebook too much weight in our public discourse. Media fails to provoke discourse when the information is being tailored to align with your beliefs; this is precisely what is happening on Facebook. Political ads target users who have been identified as members of their party, making them less likely to see ads from the opposition. In many ways, this is similar to China’s firewall that prevents the access of political information. The goal is ultimately the same; limit the amount of information that the user sees in order to reaffirm whatever beliefs are currently in place. Facebook hasn’t quite reached the level of Orwellian nightmare that China has, but there certainly are some similarities worth considering.
Summing up…
Due to the magnitude of implications involved with releasing a digital currency, the reputation of the institution attempting to release the project is critical to the long-term success of that project. Consumers are understandably wary when it comes to disclosing their private information, and this is only magnified when it comes to companies like Facebook due to past indiscretions. The reason that Satoshi Nakamoto chose to remain anonymous is becoming more and more clear as we continue to see projects fail due to their inability to separate their corporate reputation from the legitimacy of their project.