Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
In March 2018, former Cambridge Analytica employee Christopher Wylie went public with information on the companys involvement with the Trump campaign. The whistleblower stated that Cambridge Analytica had improperly accessed the Facebook or Meta data of 87 million individuals and exploited it to create personality profiles of individuals (Perrigo, 2019).
The firm used state-of-the-art research to propagate notions on social media designed to initiate a culture war, repress black voter turnout, and intensify racist viewpoints espoused by few white electorates. For a short time, Wylies disclosures provoked a sudden crash in Metas stock price. This prompted governments across the globe to scramble to tighten regulations on social networking sites, data gathering, and political campaigns (Perrigo, 2019). However, several years later, not enough has been done to avoid such incidents.
Wylie makes a compelling case for his status as a whistleblower. Without any government oversight, social media has developed into a lawless frontier of the internet. Authorities hardly keep an eye on what they are doing. Many people believe that big businesses like Meta will always act morally. Instead, they have doubled down on their illegal data mining of users, unfazed by the prospect of repercussions. In contradiction to its public stance, Meta has developed several mechanisms to ensure that third-party apps pay for access to its subscribers data. These mechanisms include direct payments, marketing expenses, and data-sharing agreements. Although it is common practice for cooperating organizations to exchange consumer data, Meta has access to confidential information that few other corporations have. The most obvious reason is that Facebook profits from such information. In short, Meta does not sell user information to other parties. However, the firm does charge companies for the privilege of advertising in users News Feeds (Perrigo, 2019). It utilizes this information to serve users advertisements it believes they would be most interested in clicking.
It is true that with great power comes great responsibility. Facebook has an ethical duty to its users to secure their private information; therefore, doing this is illegal. The company should prioritize corporate social responsibility above profits. In short, Meta should not view the end-user as a product but as a critical component of its success, without which it cannot exist. Meta has made efforts to improve data security, such as removing third-party data outlets like Cambridge Analytica, mandating more openness from political ads, and pledging to implement the General Data Protection Regulation of the European Union.
Most social media users believe they have an inherent right to privacy when they use these platforms. If there is anything to be learned from the Cambridge Analytica fiasco, consumers want more clarity about how and with whom their data is exchanged. Meta has revealed it knowingly shared user data with analytics companies and did not keep tabs on who had access to the information. They must change to maintain their customers who are committed to and believe in their brand.
However, businesses should not bear all the responsibility for data protection. Although the firm is wise to reassure consumers with these preventative steps, consumers must equally consider what information they are providing to Meta in the first place. Users must be aware of the risks involved with sharing details online and the steps they may take to protect that data. For instance, before agreeing to the terms and conditions of any social networking site, they must read its data privacy policy.
Reference
Perrigo, B. (2019). The capabilities are still there. Why Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie is still worried. Time. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.