Facebook Congressional Hearing Reveals Technological Illiteracy
In the midst of the recent Facebook scandal, it is becoming clear that many people do not understand how websites like Facebook operate, including members of Congress. Companies like Cambridge Analytica have been able to access data for years, but it is not necessarily used for nefarious purposes.
Matthijs van Mierlo ’19, a student employee of Information Technology, says that one reason people do not understand these issues is that they do not inform themselves. “Any app has terms and conditions that we sort of just click on without looking at the implications of the permissions.” Permissions on Facebook “dictate how third-party apps can access your profile.” Third-party apps that users connect to their Facebook account can access account information, which the apps give to advertisers to tailor ads to users, he said.
Not only do these third-party companies access user profiles, but Facebook also tracks user activity. Sociology Professor Stephen Barnard said that Facebook has “intentionally experimented with users.” In fact, Facebook tracks keystrokes that users type, even if they do not end up posting a status or a comment, Barnard said.
In the United States, the congressional hearings at which Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, testified, reveals another problem. Barnard and Joshua New, a policy analyst at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation’s Center for Data Innovation, both stated that there is a lack of understanding of how the internet and websites like Facebook function. New stated “half of the hearings could have been reduced by an enormous factor of time if you did not have to describe the basic user experience.” He also said that “not only is there a lack of how data plays in a data driven economy, but a lack of awareness of the tools that users already have available and what they already agreed to.”
Although this has been happening for a while, Cambridge Analytica is a unique case. New says that the issue is “how do we make information available without infringing on privacy.” van Mierlo says that Cambridge Analytica “did not necessarily get [the information] through illegal means, but deceived users with what they were going to do with the data.”
New stated that despite the lack of understanding in Congress, “millennials are a lot more familiar with how the internet works” and are “less likely to react to new technologies with fear and apprehension.” He also said that some members of Congress may understand these issues better than others, but “were getting the opportunity to ask good sound bite questions.” Additionally, certain members of Congress, “especially ones that know what they’re talking about, do have a responsibility to push back against counter-productive sensationalism,” but might not be doing so because it is an election year.
Barnard said there is a “lack of literacy” on these topics, and “we can’t have debates rationally until we understand.” He emphasized that “systems aren’t good or bad, they’re made by people,” and therefore have flaws.
Despite these flaws, Facebook can do good, New says. In 2009, Facebook started a research program to “share anonymous user data under research practices,” he said. For example, posts about wildfires could predict smoke exposure, and health care providers could use other user data to make treatment decisions and improve public health, he said. He said that scrutiny eventually killed the project, which is frustrating.
Barnard and New both suggest possible solutions. Firstly, they both support increasing technological literacy. Barnard adds that people need to talk about these issues more. “We do need to have a national conversation about our data and privacy, especially as AI gains ground.” van Mierlo suggested AI regulation as well.
New suggested regulation, but cautioned against knee-jerk reactions to what he referred to as the panic-cycle. He believes legislators should not “shoot from the hip because we are upset and want to do something.” Instead, they should “identify how new regulations would address specific harms,” he says. Additionally, they should consider the effects of restricting targeted advertising. Small businesses would suffer losses if advertising was restricted on sites like Facebook, he says, while billion-dollar companies would not. Lastly, “Facebook will be taking their own initiative,” he says. What the exact outcome will be remains to be seen.