Vaidhyanathan’s view concerning how far Facebook has created unity

Vaidhyanathan’s view concerning how far Facebook has created unity

The world is experiencing changes in technological, social, cultural, political, and economic aspects. These aspects influence the digital revolution. The goal of social networking is to connect people from different societies worldwide. However, many people view Facebook as a social platform that has particular cultural and social effects on its users and the nation at large. According to Vaidhyanathan, the social impact of the Facebook site include attracting people’s attention, political and social surveillance, and mostly providing pleasure to the users.

Supporting Professor Vaidhyanathan’s view concerning how far Facebook has created unity, community people from different countries in the world connect through the formation of village groups. Therefore, this is essay argues on the critical elements of antisocial media, as discussed by Professor Siva Vaidhyanathan in his book ‘antisocial media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy’. Facebook platform is not the problem; the problem is Facebook itself, how it works, and the way the customers use it. The paper also provides possible solutions that Vaidhyanathan should address, about how Facebook can protect users’ information and promote democracy in our society.

The Facebook founder intended to connect people globally. The founder less understood the nature of different people, but the main aim of creating such a machine was to bring people from different societies together and also to earn. As Facebook is changing following different scenarios, much is discussed concerning its value to the community. Though many are claiming that the use of Facebook is addictive and undermining democracy, Vaidhyanathan says that the effects of Facebook use depend on user control. Zuckerberg, the Facebook CEO is earning much each day through various activities associated with the platform connects while the culture and democracy are deteriorating gradually.

The daily users of Facebook will claim how important the platform is in terms of connecting people from various groups. According to the story of Vaidhyanathan, the adverse outcomes of Facebook are determined by how society uses it, and the way the machine functions. To answer the question of how the Facebook machine functions, Vaidhyanathan explains using the platform customers. The machine functions in collecting users’ personal information monitor it, and use the data to generate advertising virtual of its real customers. Apart from reasonable social connection, Facebook users use the platform to influence authoritarianism in national elections. Users also threaten other politically and spread false information.

Subsequently, the cause of problems upon the Facebook platform is the way it delivers free services to its customers. Since the company needs to earn, it monetizes Facebook users’ data trails. Through targeted advertising practices, Facebook collects and develops relevant profiles from users’ uploaded photos to build posts and comments to earn its revenue. These business activities of the company, together with different behavior of people, as explained by Vaidhyanathan as the capitalism of surveillance, is the center of the Facebook uncontrolled issue. Social media networking uses hidden techniques to benefit from its users. Since individuals are less aware of how the algorithm of the company’s trade works, leads to users’ manipulation. Furthermore, lack of information results in the loss of individuality such that people tend to form particular groups, hence the cause of tribalism.

The public is much concerned about the privacy and data protection of Facebook users. People raise issues and controversies, thus the protest to persuade Facebook users to delete the account/application due to its adverse effects. By following the public perception of Facebook outcomes, some people may consider deleting their Facebook accounts and forget about online connectivity. The author of the antisocial media book suggests that users decide to have Facebook accounts and use them or get rid of them, depending on how an individual values the platform. As discussed by Professor Vaidhyanathan, Facebook still draws and will continue drawing people’s attention, even the non-users, both socially and politically. In modern lives, people view privacy as something to share for amusement. Since society has moved away from the cultural dimension of privacy, social media platforms, including Facebook, focus on constant surveillance of users’ data.

On the other hand, social media sites diminish the value of democracy in our society. The author warns the nation against dedicating to Facebook as the operating system to run activities for our lives. Social platforms facilitate the real dangers of political harassment, the creation of bias, and voting manipulation. In this perspective, the users themselves are responsible for the adverse outcomes, since they allow the company to corrupt them for its benefit. Explaining further, Vaidhyanathan reflects on the U.S presidential election in the year 2016. Siva says that foreign agents influenced online-voting activities. The process shows a lack of voting and campaign rights, although the evidence is little. Vaidhyanathan criticizes other social media platforms for affecting dying democracy. Political members are warned against sharing the government visions and messages on Facebook pages, although it is a platform where a large number of politicians and citizens embark. Siva discusses how presidential candidates in past years use their power to advertise their campaigns online and mostly through Facebook platforms. The company focuses on profiting from sharing and selling ads, thus favoring a particular political party.

Facebook is developing now and in the future. It has billions of customers who are less intended to leave the site no matter what. Facebook-customer engagement is a fundamental approach that enhances people’s pleasure and increases the company’s objectivity. Vaidhyanathan has provided evidence that Facebook use is essential to individual users and not in a democracy. Hence, it is a monopoly platform. Therefore, to increase personalized user versus company engagement news feeds, including hate speech and false information, stimulates personal engagement. Besides, democracy is deteriorating following the business model of the company, hence the call for reformations. According to Vaidhyanathan persuading users to delete their Facebook accounts is a waste of time since many people believe in the social nature of the platform. Therefore, the public policy needs to convince Zuckerberg to control the company’s activities to ensure protection and privacy and confidentiality and users-data protection.

Moreover, for easy control of every activity, including data protection of Facebook users, Zuckerberg should consider narrowing the platform. Vaidhyanathan describes the platform as a large and uncontrolled company since it constitutes of other social media sites: WhatsApp and Instagram that have massive population use. Dividing these sites under different administrations will reduce mistrust and fraud on users’ information. To make Facebook essential for democracy, the company should consider inspecting and regulating the political user’s data, thus reducing threats, harassments, and the spread of false information. Finally, Facebook users and non-users need to understand the positive and negative outcomes of this social platform. Although this may cost the company, in the future, freedom will be enhanced to both the user, company, and society at large.

Conclusion

Social networking delivers services that have both positive and negative effects on its users and society as a whole. Focusing on the information provided by professor Siva, all social platforms or authors are responsible for informing both users and non-users about the sites. Facebook platforms should not consider adverse effects on the company, but on how the user, the organization, and the government will benefit. However, Vaidhyanathan should address the addictive nature of Facebook and other social media sites. Warning the society against all-time Facebook use and the possible side effects socially and culturally will enhance user-Facebook engagement and loyalty, thus increasing the company’s profit. Furthermore, in addressing the impact of social platforms, the author needs to consider the influence of technology in society. This includes ways in which companies can improve technique by building it differently to control their activities in the future and to minimize the adverse outcomes.

References

Vaidhyanathan, S. (2018). Antisocial Media: How Facebook disconnects us and undermines democracy. Oxford University Press.