Barnes

Zenzele Barnes

1 December 2014

CORE 412

Dr. Cooper Guasco

Facebook Privacy and Ethical Dilemmas

There is an abundance of information individuals share on the Internet everyday.

Constant updates can range anywhere from a picture of a meal to posting a phone number

or address identifiers. Of course, these actions come with the culture of social media. The

purpose of social media is connecting and exchanging information with the community

created on the Internet. Facebook and other social media websites are at their peak

popularity, these organizations have more to gain from any and all information posted.

According to the Pew Research Center, in 2013 “some 73% of online adults now use a

social networking site of some kind” (Duggan & Smith, 2013). By far, Facebook is at the

forefront of social networking websites with 63% of Facebook users visit the site at least

once a day (Duggan & Smith, 2013). These numbers show how much and how often

people are engaging with their online communities.

Every time a user creates a new Facebook account, it adds to the growing archive

of user information. As a result, depending on the context, new ethical considerations

arise. Issues of digital ownership, Internet privacy, user rights and social media company

boundaries are all ethically linked to Facebook. These online issues have become more

complex because of allegations of Facebook selling users’ personal information to third

parties. If users volunteer their information, does their tacit consent play a role in the

ethical responsibilities Facebook should take? Furthermore, there is the issue of self-

1

Barnes

ownership and the personal rights of Internet users. Facebook as a company has influence

within the growing $140 billion dollar digital advertising (Metz, 2014). As a company,

they have a lot to gain through advertising effectively to their users. Moreover, as a

company they have been pulled into controversy over unannounced changes in the

website’s terms and conditions. In 2009, Facebook made changes to the terms and

conditions that stated Facebook retained users content after their accounts were deleted.

The changes went mostly unnoticed until a blog called the Consumerist reported the

changes openly to the public (Stelter, 2009). Additionally, Facebook accidentally

exposed 6 million users’ phone numbers and email addressed to unauthorized viewers in

2013 (Shih, 2013). Still, the question remains; is it fair or just for social media companies

like Facebook to sell personal information?

Facebook, a social media platform, is part of the larger social networking

community. Along with LinkedIn, Pinterest, Twitter, and Instagram, Facebook is a part

of a digital world users can create profiles, filter their information, and interact with

others within an online community. Users, within this context, are considered anyone

who uses Facebook and other types of social media. Pew Research Center researchers

found that in 2013, 42% of adults use multiple social media platforms with Facebook

among the most popular (Duggan & Smith, 2013). Even within these social media

platforms, Facebook’s influence goes beyond just what data shows. Facebook also owns

popular applications such as WhatsApp (Covert, 2014) and Instagram (Rusli, 2012).

Within the basic anatomy of a Facebook account is a user’s profile and newsfeed.

A profile page normally consists of a profile picture, a list of friends, the user’s interests

and general information related to age, sex, race, and employment. These elements can be

2

Barnes

private or public; each user can choose which information is shared and with whom. In

order to create an account, the user must sign up with their name, email address, and

create a password. Before completing the sign up process, the user must agree to

Facebook’s terms, data use policy, and cookie use. Cookies, in computer terms, are the

data that tracks a person’s browsing history. Within the data use policy, Facebook

methodically explains the information they receive, how it’s used, advertising, and other

websites and applications. Within the “Information We Receive and How It Is Used”

heading, there are subheadings outlining the information users use to sign up, what types

of additional information they can post through status updates, and more (Facebook Data

Use Policy, 2013). All of this information is open for users to explore is they click the

hyperlinks during the sign up process. After creating a Facebook account, users are free

to do as they please. In addition to friends, other elements of Facebook include pages and

groups. By “liking” a page or group, users interact with constantly updating information

worldwide.

Aside from the user experience, Facebook works to turn data into revenue. As of

September 2014, 864 million users were active daily (Facebook Company Info, 2014).

Additionally, Facebook “processes 2.5 billion pieces of content and 500+ terabytes of

data each day. It’s pulling in 2.7 billion “Like” actions and 300 million photos per day,

and it scans roughly 105 terabytes of data each half hour” (Constine, 2012). Baskin

(2014) believes “companies like Facebook and Google need to acquire evermore data in

order to make their users into better users”. This information feeds into advertising on

Facebook. Simply put, data is money. Facebook delivers ads to users based on their

demographics and interests. They specifically note that, as a company, they do not share

3

Barnes

information that personally identifies users, i.e.- name or contact information (Facebook

Data Use Policy, 2013). When given permission, Facebook uses demographics such as

page likes, age, topics, and keywords as tools to target advertisements to users interests.

These advertisements cross platforms; they can appear on Facebook on computers,

mobile devices, and tablets. In fact, the Facebook Audience Network was created for

mobile advertising on third party mobile apps. Further, because Facebook has access to

personal data, it can charge more for these ads (Metz, 2014). The potential for increased

advertising revenue is ample. The question then becomes, who owns this information,

what rights do they have, and are there ethical limits to it being sold to others.

There are a number of ways to act on this ethical dilemma. One option is to hold

social media companies accountable for their actions. With constant changes in privacy

settings, companies ethically should be held to a certain level of transparency. Selling this

information to third parties violates this level of trust. This option really takes into

account what it means to treat people and their information with dignity, as Kant would.

It can be accomplished through the users. Through gathering as a community and using a

collective voice, users can make their concerns heard. Facebook cannot exist without a

community to serve. Another option is have raise awareness and provide more resources

to users on protecting their online information. Checking “I agree to these terms and

conditions” only goes so far is people do not absorb the information. This tainted consent

does not make Facebook assume responsibility over what happens to users after they

agree. Rawlsian ethics would have no problem with this tainted consent but this contract

is important to Kant. From this point of view, the user is empowered. Users ought to have

the ability to make informed decisions. In the sense of individual rights, it is closely

4

Barnes

related to Libertarianism. Users have the right to know what they sign up for. It is users’

responsibility to read the fine print. Lastly, an option is for social media companies to not

sell users’ personal information. Facebook is competing with Google within the $140

billion dollar digital advertising market (Metz, 2014). This plan of action would not be

easy to achieve. There is too much money to gain; Facebook is a business before

anything else. This action would require a whole community to work together to create

prohibitive laws. Social awareness movements are all over online communities like

Twitter. By mobilizing a community that already is connected online, people can

influence each other and move towards raising awareness of their concerns. Within this

context, it is important to look at contracts, privacy boundaries, and community impact

under ethical considerations.

When evaluating the ethics of selling third party information, an important section

of the argument lies within Facebook’s terms and conditions. Signing a contract is

ethically significant. As stated before, Facebook clearly gives access to information

concerning their rights and how their information is used. Contracts allow users to make

a choice. Users can choose to read the fine print or skim over it. It is important to note

that not all contracts are fair (Sandel, 2009). Rawlsian ethics accept that not all contracts

are fair and that consent is not a binding moral claim (Sandel, 2009). By these standards,

Facebook, not matter what they do with user data, has no responsibility with what

happens with user data. When users agree to the terms and conditions are where,

Facebook as a company has no further ethical obligations.

Problems occur when Facebook users are not fully informed. Tainted consent

presents another complicated ethical dilemma with selling information. Though Facebook

5

Barnes

presents information related to user data, it is buried within hyperlinks to other pages. In

order to find pertinent information, users have to actively look for it. Kantism is strongly

rooted in honoring people as rational beings. The categorical impeditive is unconditional

regardless of the circumstances (Sandel, 2009). In the past Facebook has come into

criticism about making changes to these policies without adequately updating users. In

2009 it was discovered that “Facebook would retain users’ content and licenses after an

account was terminated” (Stelter, 2009). This, in addition to uninformed consent, would

not be treating people with dignity according to Kant. This holds true even if the terms

and conditions become more transparent; Facebook is not doing the right thing for the

right reason consistently. They have also come into criticism about making changes to

these policies without adequately updating users. In 2009 it was discovered that

“Facebook would retain users’ content and licenses after an account was terminated”

(Stelter, 2009). If Facebook users do not realize their digital information has the ability to

be sold, they cannot fully consent to sharing it. Though Facebook does not explicitly use

the language of selling user information, they infer based on user information. The

information they use includes “information you provide at registration or add to your

account or timeline, things you share and do on Facebook, such as what you like, and

your interactions with advertisements, partners, or apps, keywords from your stories, and

things we infer from your use of Facebook” (Facebook Data Use Policy, 2013). Through

this information, Facebook makes $3.7 billion annually in ad business (Fowler, 2012).

In addition to contracts, another ethical consideration is self-ownership and

informational boundaries. Individual rights and freedoms are the most important from a

Libertarian point of view. This works with the understanding that individuals allow

6

Barnes

others these same freedoms. This includes the right for a person to do whatever they want

with the things they own (Sandel, 2009). Ownership, from the Libertarian point of view,

not only includes the tangible but one’s self. Self-ownership in this context means that

Facebook users can choose to do anything they want on their accounts and their

information. This includes users exploiting themselves or sharing any and all of their

information. However, digital self-ownership is a sensitive topic for the general public.

Mark Zuckerburg, founder of Facebook, has responded to the public many times about

digital self-ownership. Facebook officials have assured users that they own and control

their information (Stelter, 2009). In this particular instance, changing terms and

conditions made users feel like their information was vulnerable.

Individual liberties are complex, especially online. Utilitarian’s are not as

concerned with individual rights as they are with what is best for the many. Utilitarians

look at maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain on a communal scale. In this case, the

community being any user with a Facebook or social media account. By 2009, the

number of active users was 175 million worldwide (Stelter, 2009). Individual rights only

matter in the greater sum of everything else. One objection to the Utilitarian standpoint is

that all moral goods cannot be a single currency. Happiness, arguably, cannot simply be

calculated. Each action has different moral weight but Utilitarianism counts every

preference equally within the dichotomy of pleasure or pain. With respect to Facebook, it

is possible to look at pleasure from two different standpoints, the user and the third

parties. For the user, the selling of their personal information can work as both a good

and bad thing. On a very obvious level, selling a user’s public information is bad because

it violates their privacy. In fact, 36% of polled Facebook users reported that they strongly

7

Barnes

disliked others posting about them without asking permission. Additionally, 24% strongly

disliked the pressure to share too much personal information (Smith, 2014). Online

privacy and boundaries are a complex matter. Privacy, as it exists online and off, mean

people actively choosing what to disclose with others.

Facebook privacy concerns are complicated because the information disclosed is

hard to control or remove once it is posted. These boundaries can be especially tricky in

situations of minors. Officially, to make a Facebook account, one must be at least 13

years old. Professor Susan Barnes finds that there is a disconnect between youths’

thoughts on privacy on the Internet and their actions on social media websites. Barnes

calls this the privacy paradox. In other words, “adults are concerned about invasion of

privacy, while teens freely give up personal information. This occurs because often teens

are not aware of the public nature of the Internet” (Barnes, 2006). This lack of

understanding puts young users information at risk. The Pew Research Center surveyed

802 youth between ages 12-17 and found that 60% of the teens kept their Facebook

profiles private. This 2013 survey contradicts the privacy paradox and shows that some

teens do have an awareness of privacy on the Internet (Pew Research, 2013). This, of

course, does not necessarily mean all teens make smart and informed choices on

Facebook. Additionally, “parents are especially protective of images of their children, as

57% of Facebook users with children under the age of 18 say that people posting pictures

of their children without asking permission first is something they strongly dislike about

using Facebook” (Smith, 2013). In these cases, the people posting pictures could be both

peers in the same age range or older individuals. The issue of privacy affects users of all

ages. This issue also connects to user expectations and behavior. Any user without an

8

Barnes

understanding of Internet privacy will not properly be prepared to address the risks.

Whether underage or uninformed, individuals that do not fully understand their own

privacy boundaries on Facebook could put personal information in jeopardy.

In addition to privacy and consent, finding the purpose of Facebook is part of

determining if selling third-party information is just. Aristotle connected to looking at

issues through a community lens. Aristotle defines justice as something that is both

teleological and honorific. Teleogical means that defining rights requires us to figure out

the telos (end or purpose) of the social practice in question. Finding out the purpose of

Facebook is something that involves the whole community. Facebook states their mission

is to “give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected.

People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what’s going

on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them” (Facebook Newsroom,

2014). Facebook is a constantly evolving online community which, of course, does not

exist in a bubble. It is also the users who create its meaning. The purpose of the Internet

and social media websites varies from person to person. Researchers found “information

flows on social networking sites are mediated not just by the global nature of Internet

communication, but by the ways that those sites and their users interpret the meaning of

online friendship and the social norms that go with it” (Hull, Lipford, & Latulipe, 2011).

Facebook use can be about connecting with old friends or sharing your experiences.

There is no singular way to define its purpose.

Aristotle believed that language was the key to enabling people to develop their

human capabilities and actions. In this sense, Facebook is a huge outlet for public

discussion. People from around the world can record an experience, interact with media,

9

Barnes

and start a discussion. Within this online community, examining whose responsibility in

society it is to address digital information violations is an interesting challenge.

Aristotelians believe that moral virtue comes about as a result of habit. Law cultivates the

habits of good character (Sandel, 2009). These principles while honorific, can be hard to

access a company or entire Internet community. Even still, it is important to keep them in

mind as guidelines for just behavior. One example of these testing these guidelines is

applying the Good Life to Facebook.

The Good Life can be used to access the moral boundaries present on the Internet

and how they related to the sharing of digital information. Edward Spence found that

wisdom links information to a good life. Spence believes “wisdom has a direct and

primary relevant role to play in the normative evaluation of digital information and its

relationship to a good life in the infosphere…In particular, wisdom as phronesis or

practical wisdom, a reflective virtue that enables one to exercise understanding and good

judgment in one’s digital informational choices and actions, with full appreciation of the

value of both the means and ends of those choices and actions and their anticipated

consequences for one’s life, is essential for living a good life in the infosphere.” (Spence,

2011). By this assessment, achieving the good life is about using good judgment on the

Internet. This definition of finding the good life online does not necessarily reflect

Facebook’s role as a company. However, Spence states that “unreflective misuse and

abuse of information” is unethical (Spence, 2011). Facebook has access to a large amount

of personal user information. The community could consider selling information to third

parties an abuse of information.

10

Barnes

In the case of Facebook selling information to third parties, what is the just thing

to do? Utilitarians believe that what is just is based upon creating happiness for the most

number of people. Users outnumber the people working for third party information

companies. Facebook is capable of enacting social change online, as exhibited by organ

donations. Do these social justice actions weigh more in the overall happiness of the

majority? In this particular case, it can be argued that the majority would remain happiest

by having their personal information kept personal. Personal means having user

information being available on Facebook but not shared with third parties. Libertarians

would view this issue as unethical because of self-ownership. Under the principles of

self-ownership, the information I put on the Internet or anywhere else is mine. The

subject or motives behind the information are not the issue; individuals are free to make

their own choices. The ethical issue comes into play because of others violating the rights

of users by taking and exploiting what is gained through tainted consent. Consent is

important if it is established under fair conditions. Under the system of self-ownership,

only I can exploit my own information. Aristotelian ethics could go either way depending

on how the information is being used. Facebook does a lot to further public discourse of

issues and politics. Reaching the good life online is dependent on individual choices.

Kant believes in respecting people as ends to themselves. Facebook’s motives for

gathering this advertising information are both to help people connect to their interests

but it also serves to make Facebook money.

Facebook selling personal information to third parties, with these ethical

considerations in mind, is unethical. When signing up for a Facebook account, people

have to be aware they are signing a contract. Tainted consent is a problem on Facebook

11

Barnes

but it also is a problem of the Internet as a whole. Websites outside of just social media

have created a culture that sustains this ignorance. Even when installing a computer

program, there is a long list of terms and conditions that most people skip. The Internet

has heightened society’s need for instant gratification. Reading through verbose legal

jargon is not something the public wants to do. It is the responsibility of the community

to change this. Companies like Facebook act in favor of their stakeholders, which include

users. Baskin (2014) argues that this relationship is a two-way conversation. Users have

the power to boycott and make demands of Facebook to be more transparent. On the

other side, users must understand that the Internet is an inherently public place. It is

important that users make smart choices when deciding what to post to Facebook and

other social media websites.

The best approach is the community raising awareness and providing resources

about Internet safety to users. This plan would require action not only from Facebook but

it’s users. On Facebook’s end, letting the public know about changes in policies is an

important part of this solution. Making changes in terms and conditions is fine but the

users should be aware. This builds trust and helps people make informed decisions.

Users, in turn, have to manage their Internet and social media presence. Also, in order to

make changes they have to mobilize and voice their concerns as one. Under

Libertarianism, users own their own information. It is their responsibility and right to use

Facebook however they please. Maintaining a certain level of privacy and digital

ownership on Facebook requires each user thinking about the content they want to post.

The boundaries of information sharing on Facebook and other social media companies

12

Barnes

are being tested everyday. Users have to take control of their own right to freedom and

think before they hit sign up.

13

Barnes

References

Barnes, S. (2006). A Privacy Paradox: Social Networking in the United States. First

Monday, 11(9). Retrieved October 4, 2014, from

http://www.firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1394/1312

Baskin, J. (2014, November 29). Facebook's Privacy Basics Illustrate Opportunity For

Two-Way Conversations. Retrieved November 29, 2014, from

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonathansalembaskin/2014/11/29/facebooks-privacy-

basics-illustrate-opportunity-for-twoway-conversations/

Constine, J. (2012, August 22). How Big Is Facebook’s Data? 2.5 Billion Pieces Of

Content And 500 Terabytes Ingested Every Day. Retrieved November 27, 2014,

from http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/22/how-big-is-facebooks-data-2-5-billion-

pieces-of-content-and-500-terabytes-ingested-every-day/

Covert, A. (2014, February 19). Facebook buys WhatsApp for $19 billion. Retrieved

October 21, 2014, from

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/19/technology/social/facebook-whatsapp/

Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2013, December 30). Social Media Update 2013. Retrieved

October 1, 2014, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/12/30/social-media-

update-2013/

Facebook Company Info. (2014). Retrieved November 10, 2014, from

http://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/

Facebook Data Use Policy. (2013, November 15). Retrieved October 25, 2014, from

https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/

Fowler, G. (2012, October 12). Facebook Sells More Access to Members. Retrieved

14

Barnes

November 27, 2014, from

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100008723963904438626045780294509181992

58

Hull, G., Lipford, H., & Latulipe, C. (2011). Contextual gaps: Privacy Issues on

Facebook.Ethics and Information Technology, 13(4), 289-302. Retrieved October

17, 2014, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-010-9224-8

Metz, C. (2014, October 5). Even More Facebook Ads Will Now Appear in Your Other

Apps. Retrieved October 17, 2014, from

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/facebook-extends-ad-targeting-talents-yet/

Rusli, E. (2012, April 12). Facebook Buys Instagram for $1 Billion. Retrieved October

21, 2014, from http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/facebook-buys-

instagram-for-1-billion/?_r=0

Shih, G. (2013, June 21). Facebook admits year-long data breach exposed 6 million users.

Retrieved November 27, 2014, from

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/net-us-facebook-security-

idUSBRE95K18Y20130621

Simonite, T. (2012, June 13). What Facebook Knows. Retrieved October 20, 2014, from

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/428150/what-facebook-knows/

Smith, A. (2014, February 3). 6 New Facts About Facebook. Retrieved October 20, 2014,

from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/6-new-facts-about-

facebook/

Spence, E. (2011). Information, Knowledge and Wisdom: Groundwork for the Normative

15

Barnes

Evaluation of Digital Information and Its Relation to the Good Life. Ethics and

Information Technology, 13(3), 261-275. Retrieved October 1, 2014, from

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-011-9265-7

Stelter, B. (2009, February 16). Facebook's Users Ask Who Owns Information. Retrieved

September 30, 2014, from

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html

Teens, Social Media, and Privacy. (2013, May 21). Retrieved November 10, 2014, from

http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy-2/

Vallor, S. (2012, August 3). Social Networking and Ethics. Retrieved September 15,

2014, from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-social-networking/#pagetopright

Zimmer, M. (2010). “But The Data Is Already Public”: On The Ethics Of Research In

Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12(4), 313-325. Retrieved

September 30, 2014, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-010-

9227-5

16