Kate Davis CULT 301 March 24, 2009 The Hierarchy of Transparency: Facebook and Digital Rights to Privacy

On February 4th, 2009, an event occurred that shook the foundations of a particular online community to its core, evoking global headlines and causing a noticeably substantial outcry from the digital populace at large: Facebook, the reigning dominant online social networking site, modified it's Terms of Service agreement. The offending paragraph outlined that the corporation Facebook Inc. retained the rights to personal information upon one's profile termination, with the user agreeing to the distribution and use of such data to partner corporations and interest groups at the company's whim (consumerist.com). The network's voluntary membership, hearing of this change, saw nearly 10 000 individuals defiantly raise their pointer fingers as if in perfect unison and click, with vigour and resolve, the 'join' button pledging their allegiance to a People Against the New Terms of Service group (facebook.com). As if on-cue, Barry Schnitt, a spokesperson on behalf of Facebook, responded to the outcry with compliance and understanding, stating that:

selling user information for profit or using it to advertise Facebook in some way was never part of our original intent. Assurances arent enough, though, and we plan to codify this in our revised Terms through simple language that defines Facebooks rights much more specifically. In the meantime, weve decided to revert to the old Terms as we work to address this (ibid). Viva la resistance! Online democracy, if temporarily, appeared to have witnessed success in ensuring a sense of personal agency and self-determination regarding online rights and freedoms. The event in its entirety, however, proved to indirectly illuminate hidden realities far more sinister then the superficial forum-based exchange would like it's users to be aware. What the incident made explicit, perhaps unwittingly, is the inherent Neo-Liberalist agenda foundational to each policy change,

convenience-based formatting feature, and overall structure of the medium itself. Due to it's fluid network capacity, hidden corporate organization, politicized rhetoric and covert consumerist agenda, Facebook has all but obliterated any concrete assertion of formal resistance, legitimate criticism and a sound moral response to it's policies and practices. When Facebook was first established in Cambridge, Massachusetts in February of 2004, when Harvard students Mark Zukerberg, Justin Moskovitz, Chris Hughes and Eduardo Saverin launched the initial version for networking purposes within their school (facebook.com). Within two years, the site moved it's operations base to Palo Alto-Silicon Valley-California, expanded to 12 million active users, and entered into a lucrative partnership with Microsoft on banner ads (ibid). The rapid growth was much to do with the nature of the site itself: Facebook allowed individuals to build profiles, post images and videos, network amongst friends and communicate with ease well beyond the capacity of any interactive social technology prior. Many individuals, already attune to the digital dialect of email and internet chat, readily assumed a position within the vibrantly visual, and ever-expanding network without questioning the ethics and schema of the medium itself. With the exponential growth of the network, however, came shifts in policy and formatting that were not welcomed objectively by the Facebook masses, including the much-contested 'News Feed', and the now infamous policy change. Facebook users, taking notice of the privacy-infringing news through a wealth of media venues both on and offline,1 openly rallied against the changes by speaking out against the corporation from within it's own network, forcing the company to react swiftly and rectify the situation. The corporate entity promised, in a concise statement (outlined above), to revert back to it's original Terms of Service until a solution could be reached; and the Facebook world was back in a state of normalcy once again. Unfortunately for Facebook enthusiasts, this sudden influx of interest toward the digital rights of their online person was a false endeavour for control in an arena that was, upon inception, inherently removed of individual authority. Criticism toward the new addition in service terms, fundamentally
1 Changes were quickly documented on newswires, Twitter, blogs, and Facebook itself: a veritable postmodern word-ofmouth.

speaking, is up against both an historically informed and covertly implemented Neo-Liberal rhetoric: to illuminate and contest the additional 'upon termination' setting is to disregard the established, relatively overlooked assertion that states: [users] hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license [to] use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display... User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service... and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof (facebook.com). The only difference between the former setting and the disputed addition is the quality of a perceptual lack of content control on the part of the user herself. The assumption, previously, was once the user was removed from the matrix, he or she would become a non-entity within the digital space formerly occupied by a public profile. Suddenly, the Facebook user was confronted with their 'image' and data vulnerable to use after termination, prompting anxieties surrounding privacy beyond the digital grave. What is immediately problematic in this collective expression of unease is the sublime complacency to which a majority of Facebook users subscribe to the increasingly invasive Terms of Service whilst active in the network. There appears to be an assumption here, despite clearly defined documentation suggesting otherwise2, that the activity and 'visibility' of an online user enables a heightened degree of control between themselves and their content. The user's agency, in this process, is exerted through the ability to change their profile settings, uploaded content, and augment other limited features which seem to imply self-posession over their own personal space. Leif H. Finkel describes the immersive nature of this version of external reality, noting that:

The vivid detail of [the] external picture blends seamlessly with our cognitive picture of our place in the universe. And thus, we come to
2 T.O.S. outlined above.

develop a deep trust of our perceptions and an implicit faith in our understanding... all objects in our survey (Finkel, 343). The Facebook user, thus, assumes a position of trust that their unilateral view of the screen, and it's implied totality in it's two-dimensional plane, is the sole perspective regarding the functionality and modification of individual content. The difficulty is in the outright fallacy of agency demonstratedlu in this process, as the internet is inherently connected and translucent, and the screen speaks to only a fraction of what is contained in any given virtual space. The elaborate data systems we are developing still exist outside of our primary sensory world, notes Michael Heim in his dystopic generative work The Cyberspace Dialectic; The systems do not belong to reality but constitute instead, in the eyes of the naive realist, a suppression of reality (Heim, 32). The flux and ever-shifting nature of Facebook, as a social venue of personal promotion and voyeuristic exchange, distracts and distances the user from the concrete corporate formation of it's host, Facebook Inc., and the omnipresent panopiticon-like structure of the realm of Facebook itself. Control, whether online or offline, is essentially a mute point upon entering into a contract with the social network, for as long as the user generates content, they willingly provide free content and data to any connected corporation partnered with the conglomerate. Similarly, the anxiety heralded by the latest privacy concern draws another troublesome reality to the forefront; the user, in expressing concern over an ambiguous, future-oriented point of reference, willingly submits to the increased susceptibility, whilst online, to hackers and other such criminal network activity. In his work The Spirit of Terrorism, Jean Baudrillard outlines that the more concentrated the system becomes globally, ultimately forming one single network, the more it becomes vulnerable at a single point (Baudrillard, 8). With Facebook presently a highly concentrated framework of connections, it is highly susceptible to personal invasion by wealth of human and digital viral entities, many of whom necessitate an active user to initiate the infiltration process into an individual server. The Koobface virus, for example, preyed on users by posing as a friend request, taking host of a passive username and transmitting itself through the accepted request (news.cnet.com).

Although these viruses feed off only individuals who choose to engage in digital exchange, the privacy concerns surrounding these issues, according to the Facebook outcry, seem secondary in relation to being vulnerable yet connected to an online social venue. In 1984 (Version 2.0), Andrew Keen makes the same observation in reference to Google and a host of other online networks, stating that Our information is not distributed to advertisers alone. Everyone from hackers to cybertheives to state and federal officials can potentially find out anything [we do] (Keen, 173). He also draws upon an interesting point on the tangible, noticeably more secure, realm of true offline freedom, stating that:

In the physical world, we can tear up bank statements and phone bills, discard private notes or letters, shed embarrassing photos, or keep our medical records under lock and key. But once immortalized by AOL or Google, our online records are here to stay (ibid). The nature of the anxiety Facebook users expressed toward their privacy rights offline, then, is a disconcerting warp of perception regarding active participation and security, in a manner that privileges the virtual and abhors the natural. The net does not represent, notes SHAH; it establishes itself as a totality in so far as it is increasingly inhabited, used and operated, thereby realizing itself, as it inscribes itself, as the dominant form of reality (SHAH, 195). The fears instilled at the lack of visual engagement online prove to reinforce a desire to remain in the matrix and be psychologically in control; though the relative social distancing and disembodied format of dialogue has notably been seen to invigorate the opposite. The issue of privacy and assertion of such, then, is confounded twofold; as it ignores its own rights whilst engaged in the online realm, while simultaneously pledging allegiance to the digital version of self above and beyond the physical body. What is inscribed in this process is an inclination toward transparency and risk, in exchange for connectivity and involvement: a willingness to adapt above and beyond one's greater moral judgement, for the emotional-if insubstantial-gain of being included. The reaction by the Facebook corporation to the vocalized anxiety is of interest, primarily due

to the highly-politicized and ambiguous rhetoric used to quell any uninformed questioning of their actions as a governing structure. Whilst seemingly recognizing and encouraging feedback from its users in the process of Terms of Service re-evaluation, Facebook Inc.'s actual written dialogue surrounding the issue was decidedly less concrete in it's democratic intent. In his blog entry entitled Governing Facebook Service in an Open and Transparent Way, founder Mark Zukerberg noted that Last week, we returned to our previous Terms of Use as we worked on a new set of governing documents that would more clearly explain the relationship between Facebook and its users, while going on to include: Facebook is still in the business of introducing new and therefore potentially disruptive technologies. This can mean that our users periodically experience adjustments to new products as they become familiar with them, and before becoming enthusiastic supporters. The launch of News Feed and the recent interface redesign are excellent examples that illustrate why we need to continue to make independent decisions about products in order to push technology forward (Zukerberg, blog.facebook.com). This was interspersed with the light, utopian comment that the main goal at Facebook is to help make the world more open and transparent... [and] we believe that if we want to lead the world in this direction, then we must set an example by running our service in this way (ibid). Much like Michael Denning's description of the Neo-Liberal agenda as a sort of many sided, ambiguous, global claim with a foothold in both the right and the left (Denning, 218), Zukerberg plays with ideas of totalitarian patriarchy and corporate similarity at once; making the discernible reality of his statement blurry and obtuse in nature. Zukerberg does not explicitly state an intent to change the service policy, but instead clarify it's meaning. He does so in a conversational, responsive manner, utilizing his own Facebook profile and 'blog' format-typically seen as a highly personal venue of expression-to convey his feelings surrounding the issue at hand. By aligning himself structurally with a profile the likes of the typical Facebook user, while toting aspirations of corporate and individual transparency, Zukerberg

temporarily relieves his image of it's business-oriented actuality while making informal, even conversant, the suggestion that the exclusion of this aspect of the service is not an option. David Potter recognizes this as a highly intentional aspect of ubiquitous survey and control from above, noting as cognitive intrusion and surveillance become increasingly normalized, pervasive and insidious; so does the logic of control-of power through visibility or 'knowability'-become internalized (Potter, 95). The mere fact that this corporate giant has an avatar, can be added as a friend, and speaks directly to the user enables him to take on a dauntingly humane image; skewing the amount of trust placed on his words based on a false assumption of reality and authenticity in his persona.3 In altering nature or reverting to the shelter of the underbrush Paul Virilio notes of the Aesthetics of Disappearance; the objective is to evade the obscenities of the enemy's gaze, of disappearing into a single movement of withdrawal (Virilio, 79). Here, such effective disappearance is enabled in the escape to the secrecy of the private enterprise, as a liquid and unseen lived reality apart from it's function. Similarly, disappearance becomes apparent in visibility itself, as Zukerberg blends in with those he controls and, at once, with the environment of flux through which he is a dominant force. Furthering this assertion is the notable change in subject, from digital privacy rights to the [introduction of] new and therefore potentially disruptive technologies... [and the subsequent] adjustments to new products as they become familiar with them, and... enthusiastic supporters (Zukerberg). A mere few paragraphs from addressing the pressing issue of privacy and ownership, Zukerberg's change of topic marks a knowledge of the nature of digital technology, and the collective absorption of change, reflecting a highly fractal and ever-shifting environment, both mentally and electronically, of the digital-social domain. Among the... weapons of the system which they turn round against it, Baudrillard notes of the 9-11 World Trade attack:

3 This could be likened to the pre-Facebook MUD, and more specifically the study of the Cross Dressing Psychiatrist, wherein trust was placed in a persona deviant from the perceived digital self, to disastrous results (Stone, In Novel Conditions.

the terrorists exploited the 'real time' of images, their instantaneous worldwide transmission... at the same time as [the images] exalt the event, they also take it hostage. They serve to multiply it to infinity and, at the same time, they are a diversion and neutralization (Baudrillard, 27). In dealing with pure image, Zukerberg textually prepares the reader for this very event: he both approaches the idea of change as necessary and formative-despite public reaction to the alternativewhile gearing the reader up for new and exciting, and potentially jarring, shifts in format and page orientation. In essence, Zukerberg anticipates here the power of the shifting culture patterns to obliterate the past in rapid succession, and utilizes this trend to gain the time and distance necessary to overwrite the problem of privacy with minimal media impact. The very nature of this distraction was realized a mere few weeks later, as Facebook completely relaunched the design of it's user home page, subjecting to user to a Twitter-like stream of continual information and numerous new functions (readwriteweb.com, March 11 2009). Although new privacy settings were incorporated in the virtual space of social interaction, the general mood surrounding the initial issue of Privacy had all but vanished in the flurry of new technology; giving users a new, and perhaps more pertinent cause to rally against-grievances against the new layout. As Jacques Ellul notes, quite appropriately, "The individual participates only to the degree that he is subordinate to the search for efficiency, to the degree that he resists all the currents today considered secondary, such as aesthetics, ethics, fantasy" (Ellul, p. 74). As the online realm continues to grow and develop, questions of rights, ownership and agency will become increasingly central to discussion surrounding the medium, and the place of the human persona within it. Facebook, as a model of an acutely successful social networking system, was perhaps exposed to this critique more vocally than others, due to the enormity of it's superstructure and it's commercial intent. However, criticism regarding digital rights of the non-participant, in this case, reflected a passive interest in the rights of the freely-engaged individual and a general ignorance to the heightened dangers of being 'jacked-in' to such an interactive, centralized network. Similarly, the false

democratic response to the outcry of the Facebook community by the company, aligned with it's intentional eclipse of the event through image-excess, assumed a dystopic scene of a cyborg social realm with a corporate agenda and an acceptable face; overtaking the human capacity to react, absorb the information, and assess their place in this society with a clear mind. The online world, it would seem, has become a nucleus of time and effort, so much so that-despite the relative lack of functional, concrete reward for their exertion-real people are willing to put themselves at risk for the ethics of their Facebook creation. When people are given the ability to play the role of Frankenstein, perhaps the creations, no matter how vile or inconsequential, are of more personal substance then the passive body to which we are naturally allotted.

Work Cited

Baudrillard, Jean. The Spirit of Terrorism. Trans. Chris Turner. Verso, 2002. Bautin, Paul. Facebook: 'We have never claimed ownership' of members' content. The Industry Standard. 16 February, 2009. Accessed 8 March, 2009. <http://www.thestandard.com> Denning, Michael. Representing Global Labor. Duke University Journals. Accessed 3 March, 2009. <http://socialtext.dukejournals.org/cgi/reprint/25/3_92/125.pdf> Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Society. New York: Vintage Books, 1964. Finkel, Lief H. The Construction of Perception. Zone. Glockner, Phil. Facebook Starts Deploying Revamped Home Page. ReadWriteWeb. 11 March, 2009. Accessed 20 March, 2009. <http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_starts_deploying_revamped_home_page.php> Keen, Andrew. 1984 (Version 2.0). The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing our Culture and Assaulting our Economy. Nicholas Brealey, 2007. Heim, Michael. The Cyberspace Dialect. The Digital Dialect: New Essays On New Media. Ed. Peter Lunenfeld. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1999. Poster, Mark. Everyday (Virtual) Life. New Literary History, Vol. 33, No. 4. John Hopkins University Press, Autumn. 2002. JSTOR. University of Western Ontario Lib, London ON. Accessed 11 March, 2009. <http://www.jstor.org> Schnitt, Barry. People Against the new Terms of Service (TOS). Admin. Julius Harper. Facebook, Inc. Accessed 3 March, 2009. <http://www.facebook.com> Stone, A.R. In Novel Conditions: The Cross-Dressing Psychiatrist. The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of a Mechanical Age. 1995. Vamosi, Robert. Koobface virus hits Facebook. CNET News. 4 December, 2008. Accessed 12 March, 2009. <http://news.cnet.com/koobface-virus-hits-facebook/> Virilio, Paul. The Aesthetics of Dissappearence. Negative Horizon. Continuum International Publishing Group Ltd., 2003. Walters, Chris. Facebook's New Terms of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever. The Consumerist. 15 February, 2009. Accessed 3 March, 2009. <http://consumerist.com> SHAH. Incorporating the Impossible: A General Economy of the Future Present. Cultural Values, Vol. 1, No. 2. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2007. Zukenberg, Mark. Governing the Facebook Service in an Open and Transparent Way. Facebook, Inc. Blog. 26 February, 2009. Accessed 3 March, 2009. <http://blog.facebook.com> Facebook Terms of Use. Facebook, Inc. Accessed 3 March, 2009. <http://www.facebook.com/terms.php>

Timeline. Facebook, Inc. Accessed 11 March, 2009. <http://www.facebook.com/press>