Mark Zuckerberg was just recently named Time magazine 2010 "Person of the Year". Zuckerberg said to Time magazine, "The thing that I really care about is making the world more open and connected. What that stands for is something that I have believed in for a really long time." Pressed to define it, Zuckerberg gamely expands. "Open means having access to more information, right? More transparency, being able to share things and have a voice in the world. And connected is helping people stay in touch and maintain empathy for each other, and bandwidth." But is facebook a truly open network???
Recently, I ran into a facebook filter, when I was social networking an online petition. I was posting the link of an online Petition to have a Baltimore City Government official removed from office when I received a popup notice saying that I had violated facebook's TOS (terms of service) for groups. The message said that my posting were, "considered spammy or irrelevant." How is posting an online petition considered "spammy of irrelevant"? Who determines what postings are "spammy" or "irrelevant"? Where is the freedom of speech at? Does Mark Zuckerberg have too much power?
Many countries like China, Turkey, and Iran have been blocking access to the facebook network by choice. The fear in these Countries is that the people will organize and protest against the powers to be. Maybe even overthrow the ruling parties. Facebook has already proven that it can be useful to organize people for positive and negative causes. Syrians are organizing campaigns on social networks to protest the Government rule. Egypt and Tunisia coordinated their successful uprisings using social media networks. These examples are positive usage of social networks to organize and protest.
But recently there have been examples on the misuse of social networks to organize and do wrong. In Philadelphia, social networks was used to organize a flash mob of mostly African American teens, who ran through department stores on a snatch and grab looting spree. In London England, several days of riots were said to be organized through social networking sites and through Blackberry messaging. These bad examples shows the dark side of social networks and the Internet in general.
Now questions are being asked by many Governments all over the Globe, "Should social networking sites be banned or regulated?" The British Parliament is currently holding inquires as to what caused the London riots. Fingers are being pointed at social networks as inciting the riots, even allowing hoodlums to post messages and pictures about there spoiled gains. Prime Minister David Cameron said that he would consider, "blocking social networks" in his Countries if the riots continue. Does Prime Minister David Cameron have that power to block networks on the Internet in his Country? I would not want to live in a County were my access to a open network on the Internet is being blocked.
Mark Zuckerberg flew to London to do damage control after the riots of London ended. Zuckerberg went to Parliament to answer questions about social networking's role in the London riots, and of course to continue to promote his social network company in a positive light. You think Mark Zuckerberg isn't hearing the concerns from Parliament and other Governments? Which do you think Mark Zuckerberg would protect first if it came down to it? Facebook or The Freedom of Speech? I'm a betting man and I put my money on facebook.
If you read the Time magazine article you would have read that the two biggest issues for Mark Zuckerberg is an overly "open" network and providing bandwidth. Mark Zuckerberg wants facebook to be a Global company, but most Countries aren't open to the idea of an "open" network. As more Countries start using facebook, more servers and bandwidth will be needed. And more filtering will be needed to comply with Governmental laws, and cultural and religious practices. To solve these problems, Mark Zuckerberg will have to introduce more filtering of uploaded content on the facebook network. Which is the real reason why my posts were blocked as "spammy or irrelevant". To preserve bandwidth. But where is the preservation of the freedom of speech?
Mark Zuckerberg is betting that filtering will allow facebook to be introduced or in some cases be reintroduced back into Counties that do not allow a fully "open" network. Facebook may need stronger filtering in order to keep them from being regulated by Governments around the World. There are many types of filtering being used right now on facebook and there are more sure to come. In Germany, it is illegal to display Nazi content. So, facebook filters and blocks any Nazi content in Germany that would violate this law, but allows this content to be viewed in the United States where it is protected under the freedom of speech in the Constitution.
Future facebook filters could block postings that may seem to incite trouble, or may incite others to do harm. Filters in China (once facebook China is relaunched), would block anything related to human rights, and remarks protesting the Chinese Government. Add biometrics software to the mix, and a user could be monitored and filtered at the same time. A social network could automatically notify the police whenever someone post information related to a crime on the network, then give the police the users information, postings and pictures. Filtering could become the "Big Brother" of social networks.
Is filtering of social networks the key to keeping them "open networks" in the future? And is it truly an "open" network, if what you say is analyzed by an algorithm that checks your postings for questionable language and content? When I visit my friends in person, we can talk about anything we want to without restrictions or "blocks". So why would I want to use a social network service that doesn't allow me to say what's on my mind to my friends without scrutiny? Shouldn't my social networking be as "open" as my life is?
Mark Zuckerberg has been given a great power alright. One he should protect for every person on this Planet that uses facebook. Let the chips fall, however they may fall. Even if it means an oppressive Government falls in the process. The people in China, Turkey, Iran or wherever have the same right as I do to protest there Governments policies and say what's on there mind. The peoples voice should not be filtered on any medium, especially on facebook. The Freedom of Speech should be protected on social networks and on the Internet. Freedom of Speech can spark a revolution when it is impeded on. The revolution that may take place for facebook may be thousands of loyal users abandoning the network to sites that protect users freedoms and personal information.
To make this filtering thing even worse, facebook doesn't give you any options to contest the blockage once you have been flagged. You only get a popup message that you "must" acknowledge (AGREE) that you understand facebook's TOS. This is not right. There are no options to get in contact with facebook either. The only option you have is to report a bug. They don't even answer the phone at facebook, which I have been calling non-stop for over a week. Does Mark Zuckerberg care about it's users? Or does he only care about the money he is making from it's users? Does a facebook user have a voice? With no means of getting in contact with facebook, I would say Mark Zuckerberg doesn't want to hear from us. What do you think?
