If you want to surf the zeitgeist, then look at the most common queries on Google. When I looked the other day, “How do I delete my Facebook account?” was fourth on the “How do I ...?” list. Just to put this in context, No. 2 was “How do I know if I’m pregnant?” You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to twig that something’s up.
What’s happened is that Facebook’s latest tweak to its default privacy settings has sparked a firestorm. Four US senators have voiced their concern. Fifteen privacy groups have filed complaints with the US Federal Trade Commission. In Europe, the EU’s data protection working party has written to Facebook, saying recent changes that made previously private information publicly viewable by default were “unacceptable.” Many online commentators, influential and otherwise, have also joined the fray.
If you think that privacy is an abstract concern of EU bureaucrats and libertarians with too much time on their hands, then might I suggest that you consult youropenbook.org. This is an ingenious site that allows you to type in a search phrase. It then ransacks the publicly available Facebook “status updates” and displays what it finds.
A search for “I cheated,” for example, brings up all kinds of intriguing stuff. A nice young woman from Baltimore posted “dam right i cheated i coulnt get it from u wen i needed it.” There’s also the odd potentially embarrassing reference to cheating in exams. A search for “I lied” brings up updates like “I’m sorry, I lied before when I said I used to make lots of bets. My therapist tells me I should try lying a lot to help get through my ... gambling problem.” Another writes “im not gonna bother anymore ... theres no point hiding the truth .... iv lost too much and all because i lied to the one i love ... im such a fukin dick head, i fucked up the best girl i’ve ever had.”
I could go on, but you get the point. All of these people are instantly identifiable. Millions of Facebook users are posting embarrassing or damaging messages that can be read by the entire Internet. My guess is that most of them think they are just writing to their “friends” because they don’t understand how to fix their privacy settings and have simply accepted the defaults provided by Facebook.
There’s a trend here. Privacy on Facebook has been steadily, inexorably eroding. To track the erosion, see the timeline posted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, or a sobering animation created by IBM researcher Matt McKeon. What we’re looking at is the implementation of a corporate strategy designed to maximize return for Facebook’s owners.
The response of the company’s public relations flak is predictable. Users are free to set their privacy settings, they say, and if people don’t like what Facebook’s doing then they can always leave. Nobody’s forcing them to join the network.
On the face of it, both assertions are true. It is possible permanently to delete a Facebook account, but doing so involves quite a palaver and takes about a fortnight. A bigger problem is that because the service has become so ubiquitous, many users are discovering it’s become essential to their professional lives.
“Don’t think I don’t think about [leaving],” wrote one on her blog. “I don’t like supporting Facebook at all. But I do ... The rewards are concrete and immediate. The costs are abstract and ideological. When I try to balance the two, the rewards win, but that is because of my friends and despite Facebook ... Telling people with complaints to leave ignores the very real value of the networks they have built and what should be their right to continue those networks on the grounds on which they were built.”
Welcome to Metcalfe’s Law — the idea that the value of a network increases dramatically the more people belong to it. It’s the same phenomenon that keeps people using Microsoft Office — not because they love it, but because their professional lives would be impossible if they couldn’t share Office documents with workmates.
It’s one of the great ironies of information technology — that the aggregate effect of billions of free choices made by independent agents results in a kind of tyranny imposed by the winner that took all. We first saw it with Microsoft, and then with Google. Is it now Facebook’s turn?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath