|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 11 - 27 Mar 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
THE FACEBOOK EXODUS: How Will Facebook Respond to the Soft Migration to Federated Social Platforms? [REVISION #2] | |
<
< | -- By DavidKorvin - 24 Mar 2013 | >
> | -- By DavidKorvin - 27 Mar 2013 | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | In earlier drafts, I argued that though I did not particularly like Facebook nor did I feel comfortable using it as a means of communication, I still felt compelled to use it on a daily basis because all of my friends use it. However, as we progressed in our discussions this semester, and spoke of the ways in which Facebook serves to manipulate and restrict personal liberty, it became increasingly clear to me that I no longer felt comfortable using my Facebook account as a means of socializing on the internet. The easy party was deactivating my personal Facebook account and joining Diaspora*, which differs from Facebook because Diaspora* is an example of a strong, federated platform that allows people to do all the sharing they currently do, more securely, because there's no "man in the middle" sorting all the data and looking through the data all that the middle man wants. | >
> | As we progressed in our discussions this semester, and spoke of the ways in which Facebook serves to manipulate and restrict personal liberty, it became increasingly clear to me that I no longer felt comfortable using my Facebook account as a means of socializing on the internet. The easy party was deactivating my personal Facebook account and joining Diaspora*, which differs from Facebook because Diaspora* is an example of a strong, federated platform that allows people to do all the sharing they currently do, but more securely because there is no "man in the middle" sorting all the data and looking through all of it. | | | | |
<
< | When I rewrote this paper in December, I thought it would be fairly easy to convince my friends to move away from Facebook to more secure platforms; as the remarks noted, I have not found this to be the case. However, in earlier revisions I was mistaken because I thought that Facebook and federated social networking interacted like water and oil: that they didn't mix. But in actuality, federated social networks such as Diaspora* allow users to share with others on both central storage services and these federated networks. | >
> | When I rewrote this paper in December, I thought it would be fairly easy to convince my friends to move away from Facebook to more secure platforms; as your comments noted, I have not found this to be the case. However, in earlier revisions I was mistaken because I thought that Facebook and federated social networking interacted like water and oil: that they didn't mix. But in actuality, federated social networks such as Diaspora* allow users to share with others on both central storage services and these federated networks. | | | As a result, I think my lack of knowledge caused me to ask the wrong question in earlier attempts of addressing migration from Facebook. Instead of asking what these federated social networks need to do to cause users to migrate from Facebook, I think the more appropriate question to ask is the following: How will centralized services, particularly Facebook, respond to this soft migration to secure, federated platforms once this migration becomes significant in size?
Is the Soft Migration Inevitable? | |
<
< | Facebook's business model and future growth is based on maintaining its current users and increasing the amount of new users. While Facebook reports that it has over 1 billion users (though, this reported number may be dubious), Diaspora* estimates that it currently has a little over 400,000 pod users. Thus, as Diaspora* has less than half a percent of Facebook's users, Facebook probably does not see Diaspora* as currently threatening its business model. | >
> | Facebook's business model and future growth is based on maintaining its current users and increasing its number of new users. While Facebook reports that it has over 1 billion users (though, this reported number may be dubious), Diaspora* estimates that it currently has a little over 400,000 pod users. Thus, as Diaspora* has much less than one percent of Facebook's total number of users, Facebook probably does not see Diaspora* as currently threatening its business model. | | | However, as mentioned earlier, one of the beauties of soft migration is that timing is not a crucial element for it to occur; friends that migrate from Facebook to more secure, federated platforms do not leave their friends that stay on Facebook "behind." When federated platforms improve their features enough that they allow for the same user experience as Facebook (without a surveillance team watching that user's activity), there will be no substantive reason for people to stay on Facebook. Thus, because federated platforms allow one to stay in touch with people that remain on centralized services, it is not a question of if federated platforms will challenge Facebook's current position, but a question of when. | | | Facebook's dominant position will be challenged by federated social platforms, so Facebook will have to respond to these challenges if it wishes to remain viable, both as a social platform and as a business entity. As Facebook has invested billions in its current infrastructure, I don't see it converting its current centralized service to a federated platform. As I see it, once the soft migration reaches a point where it impacts Facebook's bottom line, Facebook can do one of two things to convince users to stay: (1) convince users that it no longer does surveillance on them, or (2) ensure that federated platforms will never be able to allow people to do the same things that they can do if they remain on Facebook; both of these tactics have large underlying problems, however. | |
<
< | Because much of the revenue (if not all) of the revenue Facebook generates is based off of the surveillance it does on its users, Facebook will be very wary of changing its current surveillance strategy. Further, even if Facebook did somehow decide to no longer do surveillance on its users, the fact that Facebook stores the actual bits that are being shared means that Facebook will never be as trustworthy as federated platforms where users are the ones who remain in sole possession of the data they choose to post. | >
> | Because much of (if not all) of the revenue Facebook generates is based off of the surveillance it does on its users, Facebook will be very wary of changing its current surveillance strategy. Further, even if Facebook did somehow decide to no longer do surveillance on its users, the fact that Facebook stores the actual bits that are being shared means that Facebook will never be as trustworthy as federated platforms where users are the ones who remain in sole possession of the data they choose to post. | | | | |
<
< | Thus, the only real option Facebook has moving forward if it wishes to maintain its currently dominant position is to somehow ensure that federated platforms cannot match the user experience that Facebook provides. However, I think that this is much easier said than done. As more people migrate to federated platforms, there will be greater demand from these migrants for the experience on these networks to equal that of the one on Facebook. If this proves to be the case, Facebook will face a probably insurmountable task in trying to maintain a perpetual competitive advantage over its federated platform counterparts. When Facebook's user experience is matched (if not improved), its advantage in the number of users it has will evaporate.When Facebook's user experience is matched (if not improved), its advantage in the number of users it has will evaporate. | >
> | Thus, the only real option Facebook has moving forward if it wishes to maintain its currently dominant position is to somehow ensure that federated platforms cannot match the user experience that Facebook provides. However, I think that this is much easier said than done. As more people migrate to federated platforms, there will be greater demand from these migrants for the experience on these networks to equal that of the one on Facebook. If this proves to be the case, Facebook will face a probably insurmountable task in trying to maintain a perpetual competitive advantage over its federated platform counterparts. When Facebook's user experience is matched (if not improved), its advantage in the number of users it has will evaporate. | | |
Conclusion |
|
|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 10 - 25 Mar 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | LEAVING FACEBOOK: Understanding the Soft Migration to Federated Social Networking [REVISION #2] | >
> | THE FACEBOOK EXODUS: How Will Facebook Respond to the Soft Migration to Federated Social Platforms? [REVISION #2] | | | | |
<
< | -- By DavidKorvin - 21 Dec 2012 | >
> | -- By DavidKorvin - 24 Mar 2013 | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | In earlier drafts of this post, I argued that though I did not particularly like Facebook nor did I feel comfortable using it as a means of communication, I still felt compelled to use it on a daily basis because all of my friends use it. However, as we progressed in our discussions this semester, and spoke of the ways in which Facebook serves to manipulate and restrict personal liberty, it became increasingly clear to me that I no longer felt comfortable using my Facebook account as a means of socializing on the internet. The easy party was deactivating my personal Facebook account and joining Diaspora*, which differs from Facebook because Diaspora* is an example of a strong, federated platform that allows people to do all the sharing they currently do, more securely, because there's no "man in the middle" sorting all the data and looking through the data all that the middle man wants. | >
> | In earlier drafts, I argued that though I did not particularly like Facebook nor did I feel comfortable using it as a means of communication, I still felt compelled to use it on a daily basis because all of my friends use it. However, as we progressed in our discussions this semester, and spoke of the ways in which Facebook serves to manipulate and restrict personal liberty, it became increasingly clear to me that I no longer felt comfortable using my Facebook account as a means of socializing on the internet. The easy party was deactivating my personal Facebook account and joining Diaspora*, which differs from Facebook because Diaspora* is an example of a strong, federated platform that allows people to do all the sharing they currently do, more securely, because there's no "man in the middle" sorting all the data and looking through the data all that the middle man wants. | | | | |
<
< | When I rewrote this paper in December, I thought it would be fairly easy to convince my friends to move away from Facebook to more secure platforms; as the remarks noted, I have not found this to be the case. | >
> | When I rewrote this paper in December, I thought it would be fairly easy to convince my friends to move away from Facebook to more secure platforms; as the remarks noted, I have not found this to be the case. However, in earlier revisions I was mistaken because I thought that Facebook and federated social networking interacted like water and oil: that they didn't mix. But in actuality, federated social networks such as Diaspora* allow users to share with others on both central storage services and these federated networks. | | | | |
<
< | Diaspora* is FREE | >
> | As a result, I think my lack of knowledge caused me to ask the wrong question in earlier attempts of addressing migration from Facebook. Instead of asking what these federated social networks need to do to cause users to migrate from Facebook, I think the more appropriate question to ask is the following: How will centralized services, particularly Facebook, respond to this soft migration to secure, federated platforms once this migration becomes significant in size? | | | | |
<
< | I think the best way to get people to initially use open source social platforms such as Diaspora* is to emphasize that [1] it costs nothing to join, and [2] there are no monthly charges to remain a member. From my experiences, the best way to get someone to try something new is to highlight how there is nothing to lose by trying the new option. | | | | |
<
< | At first, I believe that many people that start using Diaspora* will not deactivate their Facebook account immediately. However, I think that many people will enjoy their Diaspora* experience more, and over time people will spend less and less time on Facebook. | >
> | Is the Soft Migration Inevitable? | | | | |
<
< | Additionally, I think it is important to note that though Facebook does not currently cost its users any money, it runs the risk that non-neutral intermediaries will start charging users for touching Facebook.com, which makes its long-term sustainability quite vulnerable; Diaspora*, because it is open source, does not face this same third party pressure. | >
> | Facebook's business model and future growth is based on maintaining its current users and increasing the amount of new users. While Facebook reports that it has over 1 billion users (though, this reported number may be dubious), Diaspora* estimates that it currently has a little over 400,000 pod users. Thus, as Diaspora* has less than half a percent of Facebook's users, Facebook probably does not see Diaspora* as currently threatening its business model. | | | | |
<
< | Therefore, I feel that the most powerful action I can take is to get friends of mine to try Diaspora*, and I think that the best way for me to initially convince them to do so is to remind them that joining is costless and there is only upside in trying it as an alternative to Facebook. | >
> | However, as mentioned earlier, one of the beauties of soft migration is that timing is not a crucial element for it to occur; friends that migrate from Facebook to more secure, federated platforms do not leave their friends that stay on Facebook "behind." When federated platforms improve their features enough that they allow for the same user experience as Facebook (without a surveillance team watching that user's activity), there will be no substantive reason for people to stay on Facebook. Thus, because federated platforms allow one to stay in touch with people that remain on centralized services, it is not a question of if federated platforms will challenge Facebook's current position, but a question of when. | | | | |
<
< | Facebook's Privacy Problem | >
> | How Will Facebook Respond? | | | | |
<
< | Another way that I can try to convince my friends that they are better off leaving Facebook is to underscore the huge privacy shortcoming of the platform with them. Many of my friends are currently in law school, and I think it is fair to say that we are all very concerned with our reputations- both professional and personal- moving forward. One of the major problems with Facebook is that it puts a user’s information into a centralized database, and once it enters this database it is no longer under the exclusive control of that user; this, in effect, serves to disempower Facebook users. On the other hand, platforms such as Diaspora* allow for secure sharing without central monitoring or storage. | >
> | Facebook's dominant position will be challenged by federated social platforms, so Facebook will have to respond to these challenges if it wishes to remain viable, both as a social platform and as a business entity. As Facebook has invested billions in its current infrastructure, I don't see it converting its current centralized service to a federated platform. As I see it, once the soft migration reaches a point where it impacts Facebook's bottom line, Facebook can do one of two things to convince users to stay: (1) convince users that it no longer does surveillance on them, or (2) ensure that federated platforms will never be able to allow people to do the same things that they can do if they remain on Facebook; both of these tactics have large underlying problems, however. | | | | |
<
< | Because we are so concerned with our reputations, I believe that data mining poses a real threat to us. (Of course, data mining has an impact on everyone, but in this essay I am attempting to explore how I can make a difference, and for better and for worst, most of the people I interact with on a daily basis are aspiring lawyers.) Facebook not only tracks what I individually publish, but also what I access, what others publish that relates to me, what others access that relates to me. I think that most people are well aware of the first track, but that they are much less aware of the latter three methods Facebook uses to track its users. | >
> | Because much of the revenue (if not all) of the revenue Facebook generates is based off of the surveillance it does on its users, Facebook will be very wary of changing its current surveillance strategy. Further, even if Facebook did somehow decide to no longer do surveillance on its users, the fact that Facebook stores the actual bits that are being shared means that Facebook will never be as trustworthy as federated platforms where users are the ones who remain in sole possession of the data they choose to post. | | | | |
<
< | In my circle of friends, I think I can help nudge friends away from Facebook by clearly delineating ALL the methods Facebook employs to track its users, and how these methods constrict one’s freedom in a way that is absolutely impermissible when there are alternative options out there. I am quite certain that not one of my friends would feel comfortable using Facebook if they knew all of the devastating short- and long-term damages that Facebook imposes upon its users; the more I think about it, the more I feel it is my obligation to inform them about this harm. | >
> | Thus, the only real option Facebook has moving forward if it wishes to maintain its currently dominant position is to somehow ensure that federated platforms cannot match the user experience that Facebook provides. However, I think that this is much easier said than done. As more people migrate to federated platforms, there will be greater demand from these migrants for the experience on these networks to equal that of the one on Facebook. If this proves to be the case, Facebook will face a probably insurmountable task in trying to maintain a perpetual competitive advantage over its federated platform counterparts. When Facebook's user experience is matched (if not improved), its advantage in the number of users it has will evaporate.When Facebook's user experience is matched (if not improved), its advantage in the number of users it has will evaporate. | | |
Conclusion | |
<
< | The main problem in combatting Facebook is that it is currently the on-line social platform that most people use, and from my experience, most people are resistant to change. For a long time, I thought it was enough for me to simply deactivate my Facebook account; however, because of Facebook’s huge size, I think a more active approach is necessary to combat it. For example, I no longer that that it is enough to lead by example, and my current goal is to tell my friends about the problems of Facebook and also demonstrate the benefits of using on-line social platforms such as Diaspora*. I know that I cannot force people to leave Facebook, but I think I can make a difference just by letting others know that a desirable social networking experience exists without Facebook.
| >
> | The path to regained online privacy is not a straight one; nonetheless, federated social network's ability to let users not leave friends behinds ensures that this endpoint is inevitable. Originally, I was concerned with how I could convince friends to leave Facebook, but "soft migration" will make this process occur much more organically than I had anticipated. Further, once this migration reaches a certain point, Facebook will very likely not be able to do much to prevent or even slow down this process. It is satisfying to know that Facebook's dominance is not perpetual, but still frustrating that a time stamp cannot be officially set on Facebook's inevitable expiration date; nonetheless, knowing the process of why this will eventually result helps calm the nerves. |
|
|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 9 - 24 Mar 2013 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | (DE)VALUING FACEBOOK?: How to Change People's Perspective and Preferences [REVISION] | >
> | LEAVING FACEBOOK: Understanding the Soft Migration to Federated Social Networking [REVISION #2] | | | -- By DavidKorvin - 21 Dec 2012
Introduction | |
<
< | In my first draft, I argued that though I did not particularly like Facebook nor did I feel comfortable using it as a means of communication, I still felt compelled to use it on a daily basis because all of my friends use it. However, as we progressed in our discussions this semester, and spoke of the ways in which Facebook serves to manipulate and restrict personal liberty, it became increasingly clear to me that I no longer felt comfortable using my Facebook account as a means of socializing on the internet. The easy party was deactivating my personal Facebook account and joining Diaspora*, which emphasizes that “you shouldn’t have to trade away your personal information” to connect socially. Though am I am very new to the program (and not particularly gifted with technology), I have thus far enjoyed my experience because it allows for a more creative, personalized profile. (One application I have particularly enjoyed using is cubbe.is, which is a way to collect photos on-line.) Additionally, because Diaspora* is open source, I no longer feel pressured to put my data on Facebook’s pre-determined server.
The easy part was personally choosing to join Diaspora* and become more involved in the open source movement; the more difficult part will be to convince my friends to do the same. The rest of this essay will focus on how individuals, such as myself, can convince friends that are currently deeply entrenched in Facebook’s platform that there are better options out there on the internet, such as Diaspora*. | >
> | In earlier drafts of this post, I argued that though I did not particularly like Facebook nor did I feel comfortable using it as a means of communication, I still felt compelled to use it on a daily basis because all of my friends use it. However, as we progressed in our discussions this semester, and spoke of the ways in which Facebook serves to manipulate and restrict personal liberty, it became increasingly clear to me that I no longer felt comfortable using my Facebook account as a means of socializing on the internet. The easy party was deactivating my personal Facebook account and joining Diaspora*, which differs from Facebook because Diaspora* is an example of a strong, federated platform that allows people to do all the sharing they currently do, more securely, because there's no "man in the middle" sorting all the data and looking through the data all that the middle man wants. | | | | |
>
> | When I rewrote this paper in December, I thought it would be fairly easy to convince my friends to move away from Facebook to more secure platforms; as the remarks noted, I have not found this to be the case. | | | Diaspora* is FREE | | | The main problem in combatting Facebook is that it is currently the on-line social platform that most people use, and from my experience, most people are resistant to change. For a long time, I thought it was enough for me to simply deactivate my Facebook account; however, because of Facebook’s huge size, I think a more active approach is necessary to combat it. For example, I no longer that that it is enough to lead by example, and my current goal is to tell my friends about the problems of Facebook and also demonstrate the benefits of using on-line social platforms such as Diaspora*. I know that I cannot force people to leave Facebook, but I think I can make a difference just by letting others know that a desirable social networking experience exists without Facebook. | |
<
< | My impression from our
recent conversation is that this may not have been a tenable
position for you to occupy in the longer term. It sounded good to
you back then, but perhaps it wasn't so straightforward.
But the good news, not reflected in the essay, is that may not have
mattered. Perhaps you didn't find it as easy to turn the people
around you into free software users who avoided sharing with unfree,
surveilling services like Facebook. But the central value of
Diaspora* is its determination to implement a crucial migration path
to federated social networking. People have to be able to use better
technology while staying in touch with actual friends who continue to
use the centralized systems where a "superfriend," the service
operator, gets to see everything. If everyone who wants to use better
sharing has to convince others to move to something different, the
result may be discouraging. So the point of Diaspora*, or anything
that follows in its wake, has to be that it will permit "soft
migration": as your friends migrate, the sharing becomes safer and
more secure. But no one ever loses touch with people who remain
"behind." So long as you are sharing some particular bits (photos,
status updates, microblog entries) with some people through
central-storage services (Flickr, Facebook, Twitter), those bits will
be stored where the services put them. You will also be sharing
those same bits with other people who, like you, use the federated
service. That sharing will occur with strong security, and you will
be the one storing and serving your bits, so there will be no log
somewhere else showing who accessed what you were sharing, how often,
from where, etc. As your friends move away from the centralized
services, whenever that happens, you stop sharing bits through those
storage locations, your traffic disappears from the surveillance
stream, and the people who read what you share stop being watched
while they do. Eventually, all your friends have moved, no one is
sharing anything of yours anymore through the centralized services,
and you've regained privacy.
Timing isn't crucial. When we have a strong, federated platform that allows people to do all the sharing they currently do, more securely, because there's no "man in the middle" sorting all the data and looking through it all he wants, that's going to be the "coolest" thing there is to use, and every young person will switch away from surveilled social networking. They will carry others with them, as young people carried older people to Facebook. There's lots more to say about all this, but the crucial point is understanding how the soft migration process works. Your essay would be stronger if it dealt with those ideas. | | | | |
<
< | | | |
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 8 - 05 Mar 2013 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Conclusion
The main problem in combatting Facebook is that it is currently the on-line social platform that most people use, and from my experience, most people are resistant to change. For a long time, I thought it was enough for me to simply deactivate my Facebook account; however, because of Facebook’s huge size, I think a more active approach is necessary to combat it. For example, I no longer that that it is enough to lead by example, and my current goal is to tell my friends about the problems of Facebook and also demonstrate the benefits of using on-line social platforms such as Diaspora*. I know that I cannot force people to leave Facebook, but I think I can make a difference just by letting others know that a desirable social networking experience exists without Facebook. | |
>
> |
My impression from our
recent conversation is that this may not have been a tenable
position for you to occupy in the longer term. It sounded good to
you back then, but perhaps it wasn't so straightforward.
But the good news, not reflected in the essay, is that may not have
mattered. Perhaps you didn't find it as easy to turn the people
around you into free software users who avoided sharing with unfree,
surveilling services like Facebook. But the central value of
Diaspora* is its determination to implement a crucial migration path
to federated social networking. People have to be able to use better
technology while staying in touch with actual friends who continue to
use the centralized systems where a "superfriend," the service
operator, gets to see everything. If everyone who wants to use better
sharing has to convince others to move to something different, the
result may be discouraging. So the point of Diaspora*, or anything
that follows in its wake, has to be that it will permit "soft
migration": as your friends migrate, the sharing becomes safer and
more secure. But no one ever loses touch with people who remain
"behind." So long as you are sharing some particular bits (photos,
status updates, microblog entries) with some people through
central-storage services (Flickr, Facebook, Twitter), those bits will
be stored where the services put them. You will also be sharing
those same bits with other people who, like you, use the federated
service. That sharing will occur with strong security, and you will
be the one storing and serving your bits, so there will be no log
somewhere else showing who accessed what you were sharing, how often,
from where, etc. As your friends move away from the centralized
services, whenever that happens, you stop sharing bits through those
storage locations, your traffic disappears from the surveillance
stream, and the people who read what you share stop being watched
while they do. Eventually, all your friends have moved, no one is
sharing anything of yours anymore through the centralized services,
and you've regained privacy.
Timing isn't crucial. When we have a strong, federated platform that allows people to do all the sharing they currently do, more securely, because there's no "man in the middle" sorting all the data and looking through it all he wants, that's going to be the "coolest" thing there is to use, and every young person will switch away from surveilled social networking. They will carry others with them, as young people carried older people to Facebook. There's lots more to say about all this, but the crucial point is understanding how the soft migration process works. Your essay would be stronger if it dealt with those ideas.
| | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 7 - 22 Dec 2012 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Introduction | |
<
< | In my first draft, I argued that though I did not particularly like Facebook nor did I feel comfortable using it as a means of communication, I still felt compelled to use it on a daily basis because all of my friends use it. However, as we progressed in our discussions this semester, and spoke of the ways in which Facebook services to manipulate and restrict personal liberty, it became increasingly clear to me that I no longer felt comfortable using my Facebook account as a means of socializing on the internet. The easy party was deactivating my personal Facebook account and joining Diaspora*, which emphasizes that “you shouldn’t have to trade away your personal information” to connect socially. Though am I am very new to the program (and not particularly gifted with technology), I have thus far enjoyed my experience because it allows for a more creative, personalized profile. (One application I have particularly enjoyed using is cubbe.is, which is a way to collect photos on-line.) Additionally, because Diaspora* is open source, I no longer feel pressured to put my data on Facebook’s pre-determined server. | >
> | In my first draft, I argued that though I did not particularly like Facebook nor did I feel comfortable using it as a means of communication, I still felt compelled to use it on a daily basis because all of my friends use it. However, as we progressed in our discussions this semester, and spoke of the ways in which Facebook serves to manipulate and restrict personal liberty, it became increasingly clear to me that I no longer felt comfortable using my Facebook account as a means of socializing on the internet. The easy party was deactivating my personal Facebook account and joining Diaspora*, which emphasizes that “you shouldn’t have to trade away your personal information” to connect socially. Though am I am very new to the program (and not particularly gifted with technology), I have thus far enjoyed my experience because it allows for a more creative, personalized profile. (One application I have particularly enjoyed using is cubbe.is, which is a way to collect photos on-line.) Additionally, because Diaspora* is open source, I no longer feel pressured to put my data on Facebook’s pre-determined server. | | | | |
<
< | The easy part was individually choosing to join Diaspora* and become more involved in the open source movement; the more difficult part will be to convince my friends to do the same. The rest of this essay will focus on how individuals, such as myself, can convince friends that are currently deeply entrenched in Facebook’s platform that there are better options out there on the internet, such as Diaspora*. | >
> | The easy part was personally choosing to join Diaspora* and become more involved in the open source movement; the more difficult part will be to convince my friends to do the same. The rest of this essay will focus on how individuals, such as myself, can convince friends that are currently deeply entrenched in Facebook’s platform that there are better options out there on the internet, such as Diaspora*. | | |
Diaspora* is FREE
I think the best way to get people to initially use open source social platforms such as Diaspora* is to emphasize that [1] it costs nothing to join, and [2] there are no monthly charges to remain a member. From my experiences, the best way to get someone to try something new is to highlight how there is nothing to lose by trying the new option. | |
<
< | At first, I believe that many people that start using Diaspora* will not delete their Facebook immediately. However, I think that many people will enjoy their Diaspora* experience more, and over time people will spend less and less time on Facebook. | >
> | At first, I believe that many people that start using Diaspora* will not deactivate their Facebook account immediately. However, I think that many people will enjoy their Diaspora* experience more, and over time people will spend less and less time on Facebook. | | | | |
<
< | Additionally, I think it is important to note that though Facebook does not currently cost any money, it runs the risk that non-neutral intermediaries will start charging users for touching Facebook.com, which makes it long-term sustainability vulnerable; Diaspora*, because it is open source, does not face this same third party pressure. | >
> | Additionally, I think it is important to note that though Facebook does not currently cost its users any money, it runs the risk that non-neutral intermediaries will start charging users for touching Facebook.com, which makes its long-term sustainability quite vulnerable; Diaspora*, because it is open source, does not face this same third party pressure. | | | Therefore, I feel that the most powerful action I can take is to get friends of mine to try Diaspora*, and I think that the best way for me to initially convince them to do so is to remind them that joining is costless and there is only upside in trying it as an alternative to Facebook. | |
<
< | There is No Question that Facebook Does a Terrible Job Protecting One’s Privacy | >
> | Facebook's Privacy Problem | | | | |
<
< | Another way that I can try to convince friends that they are better off leaving Facebook is to underscore the huge privacy shortcoming of the platform with them. Many of my friends are currently in law school, and I think it is fair to say that we are all very concerned with our reputations- both professional and personal- moving forward. One of the major problems with Facebook is that it puts a user’s information into a centralized database, and once it enters this database it is no longer under the exclusive control of that user; this, in effect, serves to disempower Facebook users. On the other hand, platforms such as Diaspora* allow for secure sharing without central monitoring or storage. | >
> | Another way that I can try to convince my friends that they are better off leaving Facebook is to underscore the huge privacy shortcoming of the platform with them. Many of my friends are currently in law school, and I think it is fair to say that we are all very concerned with our reputations- both professional and personal- moving forward. One of the major problems with Facebook is that it puts a user’s information into a centralized database, and once it enters this database it is no longer under the exclusive control of that user; this, in effect, serves to disempower Facebook users. On the other hand, platforms such as Diaspora* allow for secure sharing without central monitoring or storage. | | | | |
<
< | Because we are so concerned with our reputations, I believe that data mining poses a real threat to us. (Of course, data mining has an impact on everyone, but in this essay I am attempting to explore how I can make a difference, and for better and for worst, most of the people I interact with on a daily basis are aspiring lawyers.) Facebook not only tracks what I individually publish, but also what I access, what others publish that relates to me, what others access that relates to me. I think that most people are well aware of the first track, but that they are much less aware of the latter three methods Facebook uses to track users. | >
> | Because we are so concerned with our reputations, I believe that data mining poses a real threat to us. (Of course, data mining has an impact on everyone, but in this essay I am attempting to explore how I can make a difference, and for better and for worst, most of the people I interact with on a daily basis are aspiring lawyers.) Facebook not only tracks what I individually publish, but also what I access, what others publish that relates to me, what others access that relates to me. I think that most people are well aware of the first track, but that they are much less aware of the latter three methods Facebook uses to track its users. | | | In my circle of friends, I think I can help nudge friends away from Facebook by clearly delineating ALL the methods Facebook employs to track its users, and how these methods constrict one’s freedom in a way that is absolutely impermissible when there are alternative options out there. I am quite certain that not one of my friends would feel comfortable using Facebook if they knew all of the devastating short- and long-term damages that Facebook imposes upon its users; the more I think about it, the more I feel it is my obligation to inform them about this harm.
Conclusion | |
>
> | The main problem in combatting Facebook is that it is currently the on-line social platform that most people use, and from my experience, most people are resistant to change. For a long time, I thought it was enough for me to simply deactivate my Facebook account; however, because of Facebook’s huge size, I think a more active approach is necessary to combat it. For example, I no longer that that it is enough to lead by example, and my current goal is to tell my friends about the problems of Facebook and also demonstrate the benefits of using on-line social platforms such as Diaspora*. I know that I cannot force people to leave Facebook, but I think I can make a difference just by letting others know that a desirable social networking experience exists without Facebook. |
|
|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 6 - 22 Dec 2012 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | [DE]VALUING FACEBOOK?: How to Change People's Perspective and Preferences [REVISION] | >
> | (DE)VALUING FACEBOOK?: How to Change People's Perspective and Preferences [REVISION] | | | -- By DavidKorvin - 21 Dec 2012 | | | Therefore, I feel that the most powerful action I can take is to get friends of mine to try Diaspora*, and I think that the best way for me to initially convince them to do so is to remind them that joining is costless and there is only upside in trying it as an alternative to Facebook. | |
<
< | Why Do I Continue to Have a Facebook Account? | >
> | There is No Question that Facebook Does a Terrible Job Protecting One’s Privacy | | | | |
<
< | I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that even after taking this class, and knowing what the government does with my information, that I continue to have a Facebook account. I have not posted any new information on it in over a year, yet I go on the website nearly every day, mostly just to see what other people are up to. | >
> | Another way that I can try to convince friends that they are better off leaving Facebook is to underscore the huge privacy shortcoming of the platform with them. Many of my friends are currently in law school, and I think it is fair to say that we are all very concerned with our reputations- both professional and personal- moving forward. One of the major problems with Facebook is that it puts a user’s information into a centralized database, and once it enters this database it is no longer under the exclusive control of that user; this, in effect, serves to disempower Facebook users. On the other hand, platforms such as Diaspora* allow for secure sharing without central monitoring or storage. | | | | |
<
< | Do you not understand
that your access to everything there is also monitored and
data-mined? Of the four streams (what you publish, what you access,
what others publish that relates to you, what others access that
relates to you) what you publish is by far the least important. What
you publish is mostly just a point on a graph, where the other
streams always contain lines of connection, links between people,
which are the raw material of intelligence.
Also, going on Facebook is one of the main ways that I am able to plan seeing a group of friends because most of the parties I get invited to are through the Facebook platform. Thus, though I do not really want to be on Facebook, I feel obligated to do so in order to maintain- and perhaps even expand- my current social status. I feel that I would quit Facebook if all of my friends did, but because I know they will not quit Facebook, I know I will continue to have a profile.
This is a conclusion
jumped to without technical justification. Replacement social
networking software, that provided a way for you to share only with
your actual friends, without putting all your information in
centralized databases where access to it can be monitored by the
central pseudo-friend, needs a migration architecture. You have to
be able to move to secure sharing without central monitoring or
storage without losing touch with your friends as all of you migrate
on different schedules, to different extents, picking up other
federated and centralized friends and acquaintances as you
go.
Facebook's primary lie to its investors has been the one you are now
parroting about yourself: "We're a roach motel; people can come in
but then they can't leave because they'd be leaving their friends."
Smart people who want to solve this problem aren't likely to have
overlooked that part of the story, right? Before you come to the
conclusion you reach here, and buy all the political disempowerment
involved, you might want to learn a little bit about what other
people think who are thinking ahead of you. To begin with, you might
want to join somewhat under 37,000 other people at my
[[http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DQOEMv0S8AcA][Freedom in the
Cloud]] talk, and then look a little into
Diaspora. | >
> | Because we are so concerned with our reputations, I believe that data mining poses a real threat to us. (Of course, data mining has an impact on everyone, but in this essay I am attempting to explore how I can make a difference, and for better and for worst, most of the people I interact with on a daily basis are aspiring lawyers.) Facebook not only tracks what I individually publish, but also what I access, what others publish that relates to me, what others access that relates to me. I think that most people are well aware of the first track, but that they are much less aware of the latter three methods Facebook uses to track users. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | In my circle of friends, I think I can help nudge friends away from Facebook by clearly delineating ALL the methods Facebook employs to track its users, and how these methods constrict one’s freedom in a way that is absolutely impermissible when there are alternative options out there. I am quite certain that not one of my friends would feel comfortable using Facebook if they knew all of the devastating short- and long-term damages that Facebook imposes upon its users; the more I think about it, the more I feel it is my obligation to inform them about this harm. | | | | |
<
< | Does this mean that I value my ability to maintain friendships more than my privacy? To be honest, I am not sure if I know the answer to this question. However, I do know that because I have never felt the effect of Facebook limiting my privacy, I have never felt the need to quit cold turkey. Additionally, I have trouble seeing how the government could use the content that I choose to put on Facebook to restrict my privacy and freedom in a harmful way in the future. I am aware that the government “knowing everything about everyone everywhere” creates a problem for society as a whole, but I am unclear (perhaps naively) of how it affects me individually. | | | Conclusion | |
<
< | The last thing I wonder is what would happen if the United States government publicly announced that it used Facebook as a surveillance mechanism? Even if this were the case, I think I would still use Facebook, but I would put even less material on it; for example I would take down all my pictures and be much more selective in deciding who I friend on Facebook. Because I do not egregious things, I do not feel there would be any consequence from this announcement.
However, I do know, if Facebook started charging money, I would stop using it almost immediately. |
|
|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 5 - 22 Dec 2012 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | VALUING FACEBOOK? | >
> | [DE]VALUING FACEBOOK?: How to Change People's Perspective and Preferences [REVISION] | | | | |
<
< | -- By DavidKorvin - 15 Oct 2012 | >
> | -- By DavidKorvin - 21 Dec 2012 | | |
Introduction | |
<
< | I am currently taking a class at Columbia Law School titled “Investment Banking.” For our first major group assignment we had the task of attempting to value what Facebook would be worth in an initial public offering (IPO). While researching the company we learned that Facebook generates revenue from two sources: [1] advertisements, and [2] payments (fees associated with the purchase of virtual goods on a developer’s application). | >
> | In my first draft, I argued that though I did not particularly like Facebook nor did I feel comfortable using it as a means of communication, I still felt compelled to use it on a daily basis because all of my friends use it. However, as we progressed in our discussions this semester, and spoke of the ways in which Facebook services to manipulate and restrict personal liberty, it became increasingly clear to me that I no longer felt comfortable using my Facebook account as a means of socializing on the internet. The easy party was deactivating my personal Facebook account and joining Diaspora*, which emphasizes that “you shouldn’t have to trade away your personal information” to connect socially. Though am I am very new to the program (and not particularly gifted with technology), I have thus far enjoyed my experience because it allows for a more creative, personalized profile. (One application I have particularly enjoyed using is cubbe.is, which is a way to collect photos on-line.) Additionally, because Diaspora* is open source, I no longer feel pressured to put my data on Facebook’s pre-determined server. | | | | |
<
< | One of my primary obligations during this assignment was to describe Facebook’s business model in detail, which required me to spend a lot of time reading Facebook’s prospectus and registration statement (S-1), while also closely examining its financial statements. Furthermore, Facebook constantly claims that its mission statement is “to make the world a more open and connected.” | >
> | The easy part was individually choosing to join Diaspora* and become more involved in the open source movement; the more difficult part will be to convince my friends to do the same. The rest of this essay will focus on how individuals, such as myself, can convince friends that are currently deeply entrenched in Facebook’s platform that there are better options out there on the internet, such as Diaspora*. | | | | |
<
< | While writing this report, neither I nor any of my group members ever mentioned Facebook’s relation with the United States government; however, in “Law in the Internet Society” we have spent a lot of time discussing how Facebook acts a surveillance mechanism for the American government. My question is the following: if Facebook plays a surveillance role for the government, how come this revenue stream is not accounted for or acknowledged for in any of Facebook’s public registration statements or financial exhibits? Additionally, if Facebook is not receiving money from the government, what is Facebook’s incentive in establishing and maintaining this relationship? | | | | |
<
< | First, Facebook is
merely one of a large number of industry "partners" of whom the
national security state has been asking help since its creation in
the mid-twentieth century, and in wholly new areas over the last
twelve years. That help can be officially voluntary, or officially
in compliance with many different forms of compulsory
information-gathering. Second, Facebook, like other companies
holding vast amounts of personal information and "social graph" data
is asked for favors or presented with supposed orders to enforce
cooperation by governments all over the world. The United States
government would like to know who is asking for what, what is given,
and to whom. Third, the intangible benefits of ongoing relationships
are called "goodwill," in accounting parlance, and they show up as
assets, without having any P&L associated with them. What is the
difficulty in recognizing the presence of that goodwill?
| >
> | Diaspora* is FREE
I think the best way to get people to initially use open source social platforms such as Diaspora* is to emphasize that [1] it costs nothing to join, and [2] there are no monthly charges to remain a member. From my experiences, the best way to get someone to try something new is to highlight how there is nothing to lose by trying the new option.
At first, I believe that many people that start using Diaspora* will not delete their Facebook immediately. However, I think that many people will enjoy their Diaspora* experience more, and over time people will spend less and less time on Facebook. | | | | |
<
< | Relationship with the Government | >
> | Additionally, I think it is important to note that though Facebook does not currently cost any money, it runs the risk that non-neutral intermediaries will start charging users for touching Facebook.com, which makes it long-term sustainability vulnerable; Diaspora*, because it is open source, does not face this same third party pressure. | | | | |
<
< | After looking at Facebook’s public registration statements, I have been unable to find a source or document that states that the government directly pays Facebook. Further, in all the IPO research we did for Investment Banking project, the research analyst reports never mentioned this relationship between Facebook and the government. Thus, Facebook must be getting some other kind of tangible benefit from the government in order for it to continue providing the government with this type of surveillance information. More specifically, we have discussed how the United States has become the center of the global data mining industry, which has the goal of “knowing everything about everybody everywhere.” However, in order for this type of data mining to be successful, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook need to be properly incentivized. | >
> | Therefore, I feel that the most powerful action I can take is to get friends of mine to try Diaspora*, and I think that the best way for me to initially convince them to do so is to remind them that joining is costless and there is only upside in trying it as an alternative to Facebook. | | | | |
<
< | Facebook could decide to do surveillance for the government if it needed the government’s help in order to become the dominant player in the social networking market. But this does not seem to be the case as Facebook currently has over one billion users. Another incentive would be if the government made laws that enabled Facebook to be the only social networking platform, but there are other social networks that compete with Facebook, such as Google+. Therefore, though we know that the government uses Facebook, as well as other websites, to data mine, I have trouble seeing what Facebook’s monetary benefit from this arrangement is. Further, if Facebook does receive value from its relationship with the government, than maybe this helps to explain why the market (e.g. investment banks) speculated that Facebook’s shares would be worth much more than their current, actual value. | | | Why Do I Continue to Have a Facebook Account? | | | The last thing I wonder is what would happen if the United States government publicly announced that it used Facebook as a surveillance mechanism? Even if this were the case, I think I would still use Facebook, but I would put even less material on it; for example I would take down all my pictures and be much more selective in deciding who I friend on Facebook. Because I do not egregious things, I do not feel there would be any consequence from this announcement.
However, I do know, if Facebook started charging money, I would stop using it almost immediately. | |
<
< | First, that tells us
that Facebook's services can't really be all that valuable to you,
because apparently you can adequately replace them without spending
any money at all. That's pretty fatal right there. Second, this
shows that Facebook must have service neutrality in the mobile
networks, which is not what mobile network operators want anywhere in
the world. If a non-neutral intermediary starts charging
people for touching facebook.com:80 through their networks (as the
big Indian carriers for example plan to do), Facebook is vulnerable
to collapse from charges levied through intermediaries. Facebook
knows this, but you've overlooked its immense significance.
|
|
|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 4 - 28 Oct 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | While writing this report, neither I nor any of my group members ever mentioned Facebook’s relation with the United States government; however, in “Law in the Internet Society” we have spent a lot of time discussing how Facebook acts a surveillance mechanism for the American government. My question is the following: if Facebook plays a surveillance role for the government, how come this revenue stream is not accounted for or acknowledged for in any of Facebook’s public registration statements or financial exhibits? Additionally, if Facebook is not receiving money from the government, what is Facebook’s incentive in establishing and maintaining this relationship? | |
>
> | First, Facebook is
merely one of a large number of industry "partners" of whom the
national security state has been asking help since its creation in
the mid-twentieth century, and in wholly new areas over the last
twelve years. That help can be officially voluntary, or officially
in compliance with many different forms of compulsory
information-gathering. Second, Facebook, like other companies
holding vast amounts of personal information and "social graph" data
is asked for favors or presented with supposed orders to enforce
cooperation by governments all over the world. The United States
government would like to know who is asking for what, what is given,
and to whom. Third, the intangible benefits of ongoing relationships
are called "goodwill," in accounting parlance, and they show up as
assets, without having any P&L associated with them. What is the
difficulty in recognizing the presence of that goodwill?
| | | Relationship with the Government
After looking at Facebook’s public registration statements, I have been unable to find a source or document that states that the government directly pays Facebook. Further, in all the IPO research we did for Investment Banking project, the research analyst reports never mentioned this relationship between Facebook and the government. Thus, Facebook must be getting some other kind of tangible benefit from the government in order for it to continue providing the government with this type of surveillance information. More specifically, we have discussed how the United States has become the center of the global data mining industry, which has the goal of “knowing everything about everybody everywhere.” However, in order for this type of data mining to be successful, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook need to be properly incentivized. | | | Why Do I Continue to Have a Facebook Account? | |
<
< | I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that even after taking this class, and knowing what the government does with my information, that I continue to have a Facebook account. I have not posted any new information on it in over a year, yet I go on the website nearly every day, mostly just to see what other people are up to. Also, going on Facebook is one of the main ways that I am able to plan seeing a group of friends because most of the parties I get invited to are through the Facebook platform. Thus, though I do not really want to be on Facebook, I feel obligated to do so in order to maintain- and perhaps even expand- my current social status. I feel that I would quit Facebook if all of my friends did, but because I know they will not quit Facebook, I know I will continue to have a profile. | >
> | I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that even after taking this class, and knowing what the government does with my information, that I continue to have a Facebook account. I have not posted any new information on it in over a year, yet I go on the website nearly every day, mostly just to see what other people are up to.
Do you not understand
that your access to everything there is also monitored and
data-mined? Of the four streams (what you publish, what you access,
what others publish that relates to you, what others access that
relates to you) what you publish is by far the least important. What
you publish is mostly just a point on a graph, where the other
streams always contain lines of connection, links between people,
which are the raw material of intelligence.
Also, going on Facebook is one of the main ways that I am able to plan seeing a group of friends because most of the parties I get invited to are through the Facebook platform. Thus, though I do not really want to be on Facebook, I feel obligated to do so in order to maintain- and perhaps even expand- my current social status. I feel that I would quit Facebook if all of my friends did, but because I know they will not quit Facebook, I know I will continue to have a profile.
This is a conclusion
jumped to without technical justification. Replacement social
networking software, that provided a way for you to share only with
your actual friends, without putting all your information in
centralized databases where access to it can be monitored by the
central pseudo-friend, needs a migration architecture. You have to
be able to move to secure sharing without central monitoring or
storage without losing touch with your friends as all of you migrate
on different schedules, to different extents, picking up other
federated and centralized friends and acquaintances as you
go.
Facebook's primary lie to its investors has been the one you are now
parroting about yourself: "We're a roach motel; people can come in
but then they can't leave because they'd be leaving their friends."
Smart people who want to solve this problem aren't likely to have
overlooked that part of the story, right? Before you come to the
conclusion you reach here, and buy all the political disempowerment
involved, you might want to learn a little bit about what other
people think who are thinking ahead of you. To begin with, you might
want to join somewhat under 37,000 other people at my
[[http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DQOEMv0S8AcA][Freedom in the
Cloud]] talk, and then look a little into
Diaspora.
| | | Does this mean that I value my ability to maintain friendships more than my privacy? To be honest, I am not sure if I know the answer to this question. However, I do know that because I have never felt the effect of Facebook limiting my privacy, I have never felt the need to quit cold turkey. Additionally, I have trouble seeing how the government could use the content that I choose to put on Facebook to restrict my privacy and freedom in a harmful way in the future. I am aware that the government “knowing everything about everyone everywhere” creates a problem for society as a whole, but I am unclear (perhaps naively) of how it affects me individually. | | | The last thing I wonder is what would happen if the United States government publicly announced that it used Facebook as a surveillance mechanism? Even if this were the case, I think I would still use Facebook, but I would put even less material on it; for example I would take down all my pictures and be much more selective in deciding who I friend on Facebook. Because I do not egregious things, I do not feel there would be any consequence from this announcement.
However, I do know, if Facebook started charging money, I would stop using it almost immediately. | |
>
> | First, that tells us
that Facebook's services can't really be all that valuable to you,
because apparently you can adequately replace them without spending
any money at all. That's pretty fatal right there. Second, this
shows that Facebook must have service neutrality in the mobile
networks, which is not what mobile network operators want anywhere in
the world. If a non-neutral intermediary starts charging
people for touching facebook.com:80 through their networks (as the
big Indian carriers for example plan to do), Facebook is vulnerable
to collapse from charges levied through intermediaries. Facebook
knows this, but you've overlooked its immense significance.
|
|
|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 3 - 16 Oct 2012 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Does this mean that I value my ability to maintain friendships more than my privacy? To be honest, I am not sure if I know the answer to this question. However, I do know that because I have never felt the effect of Facebook limiting my privacy, I have never felt the need to quit cold turkey. Additionally, I have trouble seeing how the government could use the content that I choose to put on Facebook to restrict my privacy and freedom in a harmful way in the future. I am aware that the government “knowing everything about everyone everywhere” creates a problem for society as a whole, but I am unclear (perhaps naively) of how it affects me individually. | |
<
< | 4 | >
> | Conclusion
The last thing I wonder is what would happen if the United States government publicly announced that it used Facebook as a surveillance mechanism? Even if this were the case, I think I would still use Facebook, but I would put even less material on it; for example I would take down all my pictures and be much more selective in deciding who I friend on Facebook. Because I do not egregious things, I do not feel there would be any consequence from this announcement.
However, I do know, if Facebook started charging money, I would stop using it almost immediately. |
|
|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 2 - 15 Oct 2012 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | | |
<
< | VALUING FACEBOOK | >
> | VALUING FACEBOOK? | | | -- By DavidKorvin - 15 Oct 2012 | | | Relationship with the Government | |
<
< | 3 | >
> | After looking at Facebook’s public registration statements, I have been unable to find a source or document that states that the government directly pays Facebook. Further, in all the IPO research we did for Investment Banking project, the research analyst reports never mentioned this relationship between Facebook and the government. Thus, Facebook must be getting some other kind of tangible benefit from the government in order for it to continue providing the government with this type of surveillance information. More specifically, we have discussed how the United States has become the center of the global data mining industry, which has the goal of “knowing everything about everybody everywhere.” However, in order for this type of data mining to be successful, Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook need to be properly incentivized.
Facebook could decide to do surveillance for the government if it needed the government’s help in order to become the dominant player in the social networking market. But this does not seem to be the case as Facebook currently has over one billion users. Another incentive would be if the government made laws that enabled Facebook to be the only social networking platform, but there are other social networks that compete with Facebook, such as Google+. Therefore, though we know that the government uses Facebook, as well as other websites, to data mine, I have trouble seeing what Facebook’s monetary benefit from this arrangement is. Further, if Facebook does receive value from its relationship with the government, than maybe this helps to explain why the market (e.g. investment banks) speculated that Facebook’s shares would be worth much more than their current, actual value.
Why Do I Continue to Have a Facebook Account?
I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that even after taking this class, and knowing what the government does with my information, that I continue to have a Facebook account. I have not posted any new information on it in over a year, yet I go on the website nearly every day, mostly just to see what other people are up to. Also, going on Facebook is one of the main ways that I am able to plan seeing a group of friends because most of the parties I get invited to are through the Facebook platform. Thus, though I do not really want to be on Facebook, I feel obligated to do so in order to maintain- and perhaps even expand- my current social status. I feel that I would quit Facebook if all of my friends did, but because I know they will not quit Facebook, I know I will continue to have a profile.
Does this mean that I value my ability to maintain friendships more than my privacy? To be honest, I am not sure if I know the answer to this question. However, I do know that because I have never felt the effect of Facebook limiting my privacy, I have never felt the need to quit cold turkey. Additionally, I have trouble seeing how the government could use the content that I choose to put on Facebook to restrict my privacy and freedom in a harmful way in the future. I am aware that the government “knowing everything about everyone everywhere” creates a problem for society as a whole, but I am unclear (perhaps naively) of how it affects me individually.
4 |
|
|
DavidKorvinFirstPaper 1 - 15 Oct 2012 - Main.DavidKorvin
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
VALUING FACEBOOK
-- By DavidKorvin - 15 Oct 2012
Introduction
I am currently taking a class at Columbia Law School titled “Investment Banking.” For our first major group assignment we had the task of attempting to value what Facebook would be worth in an initial public offering (IPO). While researching the company we learned that Facebook generates revenue from two sources: [1] advertisements, and [2] payments (fees associated with the purchase of virtual goods on a developer’s application).
One of my primary obligations during this assignment was to describe Facebook’s business model in detail, which required me to spend a lot of time reading Facebook’s prospectus and registration statement (S-1), while also closely examining its financial statements. Furthermore, Facebook constantly claims that its mission statement is “to make the world a more open and connected.”
While writing this report, neither I nor any of my group members ever mentioned Facebook’s relation with the United States government; however, in “Law in the Internet Society” we have spent a lot of time discussing how Facebook acts a surveillance mechanism for the American government. My question is the following: if Facebook plays a surveillance role for the government, how come this revenue stream is not accounted for or acknowledged for in any of Facebook’s public registration statements or financial exhibits? Additionally, if Facebook is not receiving money from the government, what is Facebook’s incentive in establishing and maintaining this relationship?
Relationship with the Government
3 |
|
|