"Facebook is and remains free." After revelations about Cambridge Analytica, this sentence, which continues to be large on social network sign-up page, is a political statement. Even before US Congress, Mark Zuckerberg defended his "mission" to network whole world. Cost-free seems essential to him "because we want to offer a free (free) service that everyone can afford". But if, as it is true, "paid with his data", can Facebook ever claim to be free? And could it also be free if it would soon be forced to comply with much stricter data protection rules?
The former has recently decided on Berlin District Court. The federal consumer office had complained, among or things, that statement "Facebook is free" was unfair advertising. The Berliner found that some of privacy settings on Facebook are unlawful. However, action against self-description as a free service was rejected. The wording "free" is identifiable in law on facts "in which actually hidden ' costs ' arise in sense of medium or immediate payment obligations or ' pecuniary ' burdens for consumer," it was said in explanatory memorandum of judges. And users don't pay money on Facebook, even though, as judges find, y provide a "' consideration" in form of data transfer.Data protection for a fee
The verdict remains imprisoned on a monetary understanding of costs, but recognizes that a performance exchange is taking place between Facebook and its users, affecting "intangible rights" of latter. Your data will be evaluated and used to personalise advertising, which is business model of surveillance capitalism. Wouldn't it be better if you paid for Facebook and received a more comprehensive data protection in return?
Such a cash option has already been proposed by technical sociology ZEYNEP Tüfekçi a few years ago. After longing against it, leadership of Facebook seems to at least no longer categorically exclude this possibility. Zuckerberg stressed at hearing before U.S. Senate last Wednesday though that re will always be a free version of Facebook. But he at least implied that re could at least be a paid premium membership – similar to a Paywall in a newspaper. Also Facebook manager Sheryl Sandberg announced a paid opt-out model where one pays for a little more privacy.or pay for data?
Anor way to make Facebook's business model more equitable could be that Californian company pays its users for disclosure of ir data. If we give up much of our privacy, why not pay for it? In a paper published last December (should we treat data as labor? Moving Beyond "free", American Economic Association Papers Proceedings, 1/1), computer pioneer Jaron Lanier and four co-authors discuss economic oretical question of wher data emission should be considered work. So far, authors say, data is more likely to be treated as capital. Data emission is considered a side-effect of consumption, which is why added value that can be gained from data remains with platform operator. The platform operator acts like a "Liege" in a neofeudalen system, writes Lanier et al.
If one were to interpret data as work, n right of exploitation would first be with user who issued it. The idea of authors is to expand concept of work, including generation of data on subsume. If you think of this idea furr, social networks are a kind of data labour market on which users are remunerated for ir "data work". It is also possible to argue for such a model from a liberal wait. Liberalism is based on freedom and self-determination of individual. The talents and skills it has, belong to him. As a result, part of economic value gained from its data would also have to flow back to it.
Trademy.com - Learn the Ins and Outs of Trading...
Malware: Hacker attacks on German media and researchers
eve Online : without war is boring
Twitter: The Big Little Löschtage
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan: one-man regime
ECB presidency: A German president of the ECB...
Pension concept: Demographic fund to stabilise...
Johann Schneider-Ammann: He should judge it in...
Homosexuality in film: The Gay hero, the last...
Fishing: Early Crabs press prices
Instant payments: Too late and too expensive
Great Britain: And now, Theresa May?