Social media and the Social Contract
Thomas Hobbes has sent you a friend request
For by Art is created that great Leviathan called a Commonwealth or State or Social Media (in latine Civitas) which is but an Artificial Man; though of greater stature and strength than the Naturall, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which, the Soveraignty is an Artifical Soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body .. (Hobbes, Introduction to Leviathan [words in bold my own])
If a service on the Internet is paid for, it is the product. If it is free, then we, it users, are the product.
Modern Life 101, right?
But with the fury over Facebook, data and Cambridge Analytica, we have to reassess what we thought we knew.
Obviously, Facebook is a way of making money. And it’s not going to be which Disney Princess I turned out to be that puts bread on the table. Instead, it is my data, driving the algorithm, making me predictable, making me available to be sold to that does that job. That was an open secret. So, why then are we so angry when this data has been used?
“Hell is truth seen too late.” ― Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
The theory of Social Contract argues that there is an agreement between the people and the state. In return for benign leadership, we forego our liberty. In return, we get peace and security. Thomas Hobbes explains this at length in his political philosophy, expounded in the book ‘Leviathan’.
For me, this anger over Facebook indicates that we are viewing Social Media rather like Hobbes viewed the State. We accept that our moves are tracked and that what we like and access will be shared. In return, we have a safe space in which to record and display our lives. A protected and secure space.
But in the Cambridge Analytica case, Leviathan was at best uninterested in our wellbeing and could be interpreted to have put us in harm’s way.
So we begin to re-evaluate our relationship with this online state. Our social contract has been breached. What happens next?
Well, that depends on two reactions. The first is whether Facebook will ask less of us. Will it seek to exploit its power less, to lessen the potential it has to influence us and will it raise thick walls around us? If so, it will then become a benevolent protector.
I am not holding my breath whilst waiting for that to happen.
The other is that we as consumers will demand more. There is already a move away from Facebook in some quarters. No doubt there are petitions, angry blog posts, wry memes and Twitter polls. In such an environment, people will opt out of that online society and seek to exist in a more controllable environment.
This is all very well but my argument would be that Facebook is no longer restricted by timelines, news feeds and pages. It is reaching out over its own borders. Now, this is not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, it is instead an acknowledgement that the world has real events being shaped by what people see and do online and particularly on Facebook.
In this clear and thoughtful article, https://medium.com/@PatrickRuffini/the-medias-double-standard-on-privacy-and-cambridge-analytica-1e37ef0649da a third possibility is raised: the traditional social Leviathan, Civitas,will reassert itself over the Social Media one. However, in my opinion, any party or individual that eschews this use of data altogether will be lost in a political wilderness.
My instinct is to stay within Facebook’s castle walls. Stay alert. Check what is being presented to me. Go my own way, not following suggestions.
And every now and again, sneak up behind that blue square with a white F and give it a good kick to remind it there are two sides involved in any contract.
