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?
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS