Social Media Corporations: Government Regulation and Moderation of Privacy Policies.

Essays | Olivia Santos | December 11th, 2023.

Privacy has been prioritized since the beginning of time; humans have kept it alive as a piece of common sense. In the 21st century, however, people have, in some cases, decided to sacrifice their privacy to gain the benefits technology has to offer. With the rise of technology over the past few decades, privacy has been reduced and limited, whether it is given away willingly or unwillingly, presenting the idea that it could be used with malicious intent. At first, technology was seen as a phenomenon. It was, however, in its very beginner stages. As time went on, technology progressed faster and faster. After the 2000s and continuing into the 2020s, there has been immense technological progress. However, this technological progress has been considered a cause for concern, as some stories have been brought to light that essentially change the way humanity must handle technology in the present day and in the future. In the article “The Privacy Paradox: We Claim We Care about Our Data, so Why Don’t Our Actions Match?” Bongiovanni and his colleagues tell the story of how Australians experienced an invasion of privacy “when the website Insecam streamed their personal lives online.” This cautionary tale presents consequences for the rest of the world, and, as a result, the question arises: to what extent should the United States government regulate data usage by social media corporations regarding privacy policies? The answer to this question would be that the United States government should keep to its current methods of regulation regarding social media corporations and their privacy policies because of the previous handling of legal procedures regarding privacy-violating cases and the confirmed ethicality of data usage by these corporations. To consider this answer, the government perspective and the ethical perspective of this issue should be considered to truly understand the way the United States should handle what could be considered an issue or a way to progress their society.

The federal government has proven previously that it can regulate data usage securely through its legal proceedings regarding the privacy policies of social media corporations. In the case Campbell v. Facebook Inc., discussed by Brandon J. Huffman, an attorney at law specializing in technology and media cases, Facebook’s decision to harvest data from its users was challenged in the courts and eventually was ruled unconstitutional with the evidence that “Facebook has not offered a sufficient explanation of how the challenged practice falls within the ordinary course of its business” (9). The decision of this case does not warrant more government regulation as Facebook was found responsible for wrongdoing, and its practices were proven to be unethical. Therefore, the amount of regulation the American government gives to social media companies suffices for protecting the American people, as they have done in this case. Through this case, however, it could be argued that more government regulation should be necessary to do what the government did in this case. However, having more government regulation could be detrimental to the United States economy as many social media corporations rely on their business practices to make money. Social media corporations become more advanced daily, and restricting them from doing their jobs fundamentally limits the economy from living out its full potential. However, Campbell v. Facebook Inc. is not the only case involving violations of privacy in social media. The United States additionally challenged the allowance of TikTok in the country as they suspected malicious intent with the way TikTok harvested data. However, “This step is thus likely to harm activity by American companies in China, including Walmart and Starbucks, which market products and accept payments via WeChat” according to Hiddai Segev, a researcher from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (3). Segev, although adding to Huffman's idea of legal intervention, disagrees with Huffman through the idea that there should not be strict government regulation. However, there is a middle ground that the United States must achieve to handle privacy violations on a case-by-case basis. The United States effectively chose not to go further with the banning of TikTok as the consequences could harm the American economy. By limiting the economy, the United States is actively limiting other businesses that promote social media corporations. Social media corporations house many companies that constantly use tactics to promote to the people who will buy from them. Although the United States chose to loosely regulate the harvesting of data in this case, they made this decision based on good reasoning: the fact that the banning of TikTok would result in the harming of the American economy would be too much of a detrimental consequence. If the United States were to ban TikTok, the US economy would be deeply affected as many businesses own accounts on the application and make money from it. This includes big corporations such as Walmart, which was previously mentioned. As for the data being collected by TikTok, it could be argued that there is a reason for doing so. 

It is ethical to allow moderate regulation of data usage based on how the data will be used, whether it be with good or malicious intent. According to Maureen K. Ohlhausen and Alexander P. Okuliar, a former commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission and the Co-Chair of the Global Antitrust Law Practice Group, respectfully, “travel metasearch site Kayak uses data mining technology to analyze more than one billion queries run by consumers on its websites to forecast price trends on flights for specific routes” (11). The harvesting of this data is beneficial to users of the site, and it fluctuates the United States economy because it provides more opportunity for the American people to take advantage of low prices, which in turn makes money for businesses, which will eventually flow this money back through the economy. Data harvesting is important for consumers to be recommended products and companies they would be compatible with. Websites and social media corporations, in general, use the data given to them by consumers to fine-tune what products and companies they recommend to the consumer. The consumer is then able to stimulate the American economy by buying these products from these companies, which could not have been done without data harvesting. With this evidence, it could be argued that the government could cut back on regulation; however, this would be detrimental to the users’ privacy as Kayak would be able to harvest anything they desire. With the opportunity to take advantage of so much information, using data with malicious intent is far too easy and effectively puts users at risk. Too much data harvesting could be incredibly dangerous for consumers. Consumers are constantly put at risk because of this since they have been giving away their information for many years already. To stop these practices is to stop consumers from getting products they would initially want. Without these practices, consumers would be less likely to stimulate the economy because advertisements using social media corporations would be limited. Therefore, the United States economy would be less stimulated, and consumers would not get products that they feel they need to live out their daily lives. Theodore F. Claypoole, an attorney at law, disagrees with Maureen K. Ohlhausen and Alexander P. Okuliar in saying social media corporations trick users into giving away their personal information willingly. Claypoole says, “Too much published information can and will present obstacles when circumstances change and a spouse sues for divorce, or a rival is seeking an edge for a promotion at work” (1). Consumers have become accustomed to sharing their information online because it is something that has become normalized over the years. The unlearning of this practice has already begun, but it could be difficult to completely unlearn, especially with a new generation on the rise who has already somewhat been taught to do the same things. Therefore, the argument that the government should strictly regulate the harvesting of data by social media corporations is strengthened and furthered. This is to protect consumers, but it overlooks both the immense benefits that could arise with the looser regulation of the companies and the interests of consumers. Because of data mining, users are offered a better experience online, like Kayak’s privacy policy, which in turn stimulates the economy at the expense of users willingly giving away their data. It must also be considered that although some practices can be considered unethical because consumers unknowingly use social media corporations, it is important to remember that these consumers willingly give their data away. Most of the time, it is almost impossible to condemn social media corporations for using information with malicious intent because consumers are usually the ones who give access to their information in the first place. Social media corporations do not pry for information as they did in the Campbell v. Facebook Inc. case.

For the United States to continue dominating its economy, it is important to work with it instead of against it. While user privacy is considered important, the data harvested by companies can be used positively. To solve this problem, laws can be put in place to regulate data mining to further protect and affirm the government’s protection of user privacy. It can also be argued that raising awareness of the implications of willingly sharing personal information could be effective. Bongiovanni and his colleagues experimented to see if 46 participants cared about their privacy as much as they said they did. It was eventually found in the experiment that all of the participants did not read the privacy policy after downloading an app for their smartphones. Additionally, after Bongiovanni and his colleagues showed the participants the privacy policy to help them understand the risks they were under, 15 of the participants continued to use the device regardless, 13 continued to use it with their personal information removed, and only three “opted to block all outbound traffic to unusual IP addresses.” Simply making the general public aware is not enough to stop consumers from giving away their information. Government intervention and having laws in place to combat this problem is the most desirable solution. According to Brandon J. Huffman, as mentioned previously, it was claimed that in Campbell v. Facebook, Inc., California’s Invasion of Privacy Act was violated, which is why Facebook’s decisions were questioned. More laws like these would filter out any malicious data mining by social media corporations and, therefore, encourage moderate regulation of them by the government. However, implementing laws can often be rare due to the difficulty laws face before passing. The government goes through many steps to be able to pass a law, and passing one as intricate as the ones mentioned by Huffman takes time. Until then, there could be many incidents with violations of privacy. The risk of having privacy unwillingly violated can be gradually reduced by both having laws put in place and making the American population aware of the risks they are taking when putting their information online.