27. 10. 2021

Ethical use of social networks

Social networks in general are beset with problems. They allegedly cause addiction, influence public opinion and are a source of radicalisation. Yet often individuals (myself included) have that networks bring them something. So why not use them? Cutting ourselves off from them would be social suicide. But isn't it morally wrong for networks to stay and contribute to spreading the wrong thing?

Of course, the thing isn't as black and white as either using social networks or cutting yourself off completely. Almost every aspect of modern life, from supermarket shopping to marriage, is linked to social networks. Moreover, it is often difficult to define the concept of a social network. That is why, in this article, I will seek to explore this issue further and find the most optimal way for an individual to approach the use of social networks. So from my perspective, I first describe the benefits and risks of social networks that I perceive, and then, based on that, I think about what that means for the average user.

Two dimensions of social networking use

Before continuing my analysis, I will define one useful two-division. Of course, it won't be sharp, but I feel it can help us separate the imagined pros and cons from the more abstract ones. It is a classification of the human impact of social networks (a vice versa). This division is as follows:

I. Direct influence on individuals

By that I mean in what concrete, tangible way social networks affect the daily lives of their individual users. Some learn information from current events (in many cases people cite social networks as their primary source of news), others communicate with their friends here, or recognize random people here, etc. This is the dimension of good/bad influence that we tend to focus on in discussions.

II. Indirect influence on other people (society)

This second dimension of the influence of social networks is therefore the social dimension. It is worth focusing on it explicitly, because most of the time we either neglect it or mix it where it doesn't belong.

Why does a social network affect society in the first place? The way it's set up - and it may be a small setting, such as the frequency of a particular ad's display - it can influence public affairs in some way. For example, the practice of so-called shadowban is widespread, i.e., that certain users are posted by the platform, but no one sees their posts unless they explicitly look them up.

Furthermore, when social network administrators deliberately manipulate data, it can create considerable social pressure. In particular, we notice this in the run-up to elections, when networks may be siding with a particular candidate. However, it may not be a conscious manipulation, e.g. it is speculated that Facebook's testing of the new algorithm helped create the yellow waistcoat movement in France (e.g. here).

These are just some examples of social influence, but we can see immediately that they are not as easy to spot as type I influence, so I will concentrate on them explicitly.

Positive influences

We will now look at the positive effects that social networks can bring, for both Type I and Type II. I'm going to focus on the things that existing networks do well, but rather try to think about how the ideal social network might work.

Type I Positives

1. People like to use them.
2. Increasing contact with the environment, better time planning.
3. In theory, social network algorithms can deliver targeted content to users according to their specific needs, saving them time or inspiring them.
4. In general, there is an increased information flow on social networks, which can result in better education for the person using the network.
5. Social networks can literally transform the way we live. They provide an alternative value framework (popularity) that is not necessarily related to real life. So you can establish a career as an influencer, but mostly you can live surrounded by influencers. In doing so, we are de facto moving to a cyber-world, and if that world provides better living conditions than our world (e.g. not devastated by the climate crisis), that can improve the quality of life of the individual.
6. Some services cannot be provided except via social media: e.g. sale of old furniture in a hurry. Connecting with other people, for example, makes it easier for us to move to a circular economy.

Type II Positives

1. Social networks already form a large part of contemporary culture. In all media from the book to the play, we can already find references to them, even live through them: for example, one takes a trip somewhere where it's a good Instagram shot. As such, social networks can have a beneficial effect on the development of culture.
2. Thanks to technological maturity, social networks connect large numbers of people. In a democratic society where consensus is important, a connected society is an advantage. Moreover, the knowledge of your fellow citizens will ensure a better coexistence for all (potentially even globally).
3. By being free and providing infrastructure, social networks can provide a voice for the weak and less powerful. Women can report sexual harassment anonymously, and the company will look into it. Minorities can get their vote.
4. In the Type I discussion, I mentioned that social networks provide an alternative value framework and allow us to move into the cyber-world. But a potential cyber-world is not only a natural extension of the world, but an opportunity to create a fair environment for all. In a society where the most important thing is not money but popularity (or digital currency), we can simply give resources to people so that everyone has enough. It's like we've eradicated poverty in contemporary society. Nevertheless, a move into such a company is not guaranteed and will certainly require a major effort from all concerned.
5. With predictive algorithms, the social network can find out what people want, even in advance. This is valuable information, as it can be used to streamline production by eliminating things that no one really needs. Moreover, if there was consensus in society, social networks can systematically put unhealthy things at a disadvantage: just as, for example, they do now with cigarettes.

Reality check

The positive effects of the social networks mentioned in the previous paragraph can inspire techno-optimism in us: where only humanity could go if it used social networks properly. So here we look at whether or not social networks are on the way.

Type I perspective

1. • Edward Snowden was the U.S. government's IT specialist and revealed to the public in 2013 what all the social network's data was collected and what access the U.S. government had to it. He interviewed him for example. John Oliver. For example, it turns out that literally every message that is disseminated across Facebook, Messenger and probably Whatsapp platforms can be read by the US government (including e.g. sensitive content like nude photos). This information can be used by the government to advance its debatable goals as a fight against terrorism. This is a tremendous restriction on personal freedom.
   • All regular networks have information about you. And it's not just direct information that you provide to the network, such as which posts you make, but also so-called metadata, or information about your use of a social network. For example, who you have in your friends (and what they like), how often you spend time on the platform, who you write to the most, and so on. In addition, Google and Apple collect data on the places you visit - using, for example, which wi-fi your mobile will connect to or, in the case of 5G, which phone tower you will connect to. When these data are combined, the social network can read about you, for example, being in a bar yesterday and then having sex with someone there: just compare the activity of the two users concerned.
   • Social networks are mostly not open source. That means their source code is hidden, so no one will be able to be sure that they are actually delivering what they promise. Yet FOSS (free and open source software) is not impossible or competitively inappropriate: for example, 99 percent of all computers in the world run on FOSS software called Linux. Or Signal is a FOSS messaging app that's competitive even these days.
   • People can't give informed consent to collecting data! No one knows the exact extent of how data is collected, and few people know what the implications might be for them. Therefore, while we can tick off the consent to collect data, in my view it is not consent, rather coercion.
   People can't give informed consent to collecting data! No one knows the exact extent of how data is collected, and few people know what the implications might be for them. Therefore, while we can tick off the consent to collect data, in my view it is not consent, rather coercion.

Yes, Tinder assigns to its users Elo, or metric that determines how good they are, much like chess players have.

2. By unintentionally using social networks, one can become addicted to them. And it's not an isolated phenomenon, social networks are specifically designed to promote addiction. They make money not by how users like their content, but by how long they spend on the social network. It leads, for example, to design decisions like the endless feed, which resembles levers on slot machines. Mechanisms such as gaming machines are present in games, for example. here you can watch a video explaining the concept of EOMM (Engagement Optimized Matchmaking Framework), or manipulating players online pvp games by which team the machine throws them on. A similar mechanism can probably be found on social networks such as Tinder.
3. • Moreover, such behavioral tactics are most attacking the most vulnerable people: children (e.g., a Facebook account can be opened from age 13), pensioners, and mentally ill people.
   Moreover, such behavioral tactics are most attacking the most vulnerable people: children (e.g., a Facebook account can be opened from age 13), pensioners, and mentally ill people.

Type II perspective

1. The question is whether social networks in the current setting help free democratic discourse. For example, there is an echo chamber, where people are only given information they already agree with, and that only reinforces their views.

There is no private email provider! For encrypted messages, use Signal or Matrix.

2. • For example, due to the lack of privacy of the Protonmail service, a French climatist was caught and convicted. Even in the Czech Republic, there is a risk that climate activists will be classified as extremists and may then suffer the same fate (e.g. FFF).
   For example, due to the lack of privacy of the Protonmail service, a French climatist was caught and convicted. Even in the Czech Republic, there is a risk that climate activists will be classified as extremists and may then suffer the same fate (e.g. FFF).
3. • In Hungary, LGBTQ+ people are systematically oppressed, making information about their sexual orientation very sensitive for people. In doing so, however, you can learn from machine learning, for example, song preferences (which Spotify collects).
   • E.g. Facebook's inaction caused Genocide in Myanmar.
   • In China, a minority of Ujghur is oppressed. While China does not use social media to do this, it does use smart surveillance systems that, for example, track what a person is buying and have the potential to exploit this with existing social networks.
   In China, a minority of Ujghur is oppressed. While China does not use social media to do this, it does use smart surveillance systems that, for example, track what a person is buying and have the potential to exploit this with existing social networks.
4. • They often don't pay taxes such as. Facebook or Twitter.
   • A network-owning state has power because it can push its agenda through platforms (like the Edward Snowden example mentioned above).
   • Social networks can be used to bend public discourse to the benefit of the owners of these platforms, such as when Facebook granted a ban to researchers of misinformation.
   Social networks can be used to bend public discourse to the benefit of the owners of these platforms, such as when Facebook granted a ban to researchers of misinformation.

In the US, the predictor of academic success is their place of residence. But that correlates with wealth because of a segregated society... The result is unequal access to education favouring the rich.

5. • Moreover, the ads have, as I mentioned, a disproportionate impact on certain populations. Typically, less educated people can fight ads harder, but the ads push them into poverty and encourage ignorance.
   Moreover, the ads have, as I mentioned, a disproportionate impact on certain populations. Typically, less educated people can fight ads harder, but the ads push them into poverty and encourage ignorance.
6. In potential positives, I talked about being able to move through social networks to a cyber-world where everyone has their basic needs covered. Already today, however, the concept of NFT, which promotes artificial scarcity, goes against this idea. So the right social network should fight artificial scarcity, the question is, is this happening?
7. I wrote that in the new cyber-world, money matters less and less. But if the networks are misconfigured, instead of expanding what we care about, they can narrow down this set using a process that can be called commodification. The point is that people's popularity on social networks can be translated into money by advertising campaigns, but it goes on to be bought by ads and marketing agencies. The result can be a situation where popularity becomes a commodity like bananas instead of being a thing we care about for its own sake.

Embrace or overcome?

That was a lot of positives and negatives, how do you read that? In my opinion, we probably won't destroy social networks that easily. They've simply become too connected to human society to be unmade. For example, if we imagine that Facebook is going to be shut down for some reason, it certainly doesn't go away the need for people to use it. In its place, a new network (and possibly worse) would surely emerge immediately. It could even be imagined to take over the same server infrastructure and engineers (it doesn't make economic sense to fire servers or employees), so it would de-facto be a renaming exercise.

Thus, social networks cannot be destroyed in a leap. What if we switched to a different platform? This is hard to do because of the so-called network effectu, or the value of a social network is not so much removed from what features it has, but how many users it has. Nobody wants to be on a network where nobody is. At the same time, people have a very strong reluctance to switch to another social network or even use both at the same time.

What about ditching the company and not using the networks? Nor can we, because social networks shape our lives. I would say that social networks are so implicitly already present everywhere (e.g. when we behave in such a way that we can then write it on the social networks).

So, for the reasons mentioned above, it makes no sense to me to compare the negatives and positives of social networks naively and then to decide whether we want to use them or not, this is not a free market. The key, in my view, is to realise that they do not impose the use or non-use of social networks - we always have to use social networks. Fortunately, there isn't just one use of nets. When a person is on a social network, it is an interaction of the individual-company-social network system, and that interaction can be altered by the individual.

Here is the usefulness of my distinctions I and II: this is the classification of the system. I. is the human interaction (affects) soc. the human network (affects) and the other is the social network (affects) the human (as a member) of society. It is therefore important, in my view, for social network users to be aware of the benefits and risks of being users. Not just the one I wrote here, but the one I left out. And the benefits and risks currently in place, as well as the potential benefits and risks. One should further seek to shape interactions to maximize benefits and minimize risks (even potential ones in the future).

The problem is that type II interactions are often invisible or hard to imagine for humans. And often there's even a conflict between interaction I and II, where one brings benefit and the other harms. For example, if we don't use social networks at all, we have a Type I benefit, that our data is uncompromised, but we can't use a Type II benefit, and we can't disseminate ideas about how to improve society across social networks.

Next, everyone should be aware that for poorer people, networks represent cheap social capital, so they are pressured to use them (just as, for example, football fans make a riot: they have social capital because they are included in party hooligans). At the same time, wealthier people have an easier time leaving the network, but thanks to the network effect, they're the reason poorer people are on the network in the first place. Again, it's an example of how rich people draw Type I benefits by being on the net (and enjoying it), but forcing other people on it, and thus hurting Type II.

Taking the wealth dimension out of the example, it boils down to every social network user holding others hostage on that network.

What's a man to do?

The consequences for the real lives of ordinary people, I think, should be as follows:

1. Think of all the social networks you use.
2. Try to use them in a way that is most advantageous to you personally: get rid of targeted ads, turn off notifications and don't stay on them for too long, watch only really interesting people, think about alternative clients.
3. Be aware of the impact the network has on society and how you contribute to it.
4. Decide if you really need to stay on the grid. For example, if this network is used by your company, it doesn't make sense to leave it, but in many cases it can be done.
5. Leave excess nets that cause you too much pain or have a bad impact on society.
6. Look for alternatives to the services in use.
7. Be loud about what you don't like about the networks. Express your interest in possibly moving to a better platform.

My opinion

Now we come to my hyper-specific point of view and insight. From my point of view, it is very unsolicited to use Facebook's networks (for me, beyond the edges). He has repeatedly shown that he doesn't care about user data, that he cuts taxes, and that he manipulates the company to suit himself. For example, they pledged not to connect Whatsapp data and other services, and they did it anyway. He's also one of the main figures in the Edward Snowden case. Furthermore, they also do not pay taxes. The apt list of flaws is Richard Stallman.

In addition, there are alternative social networks for FB \u2014 there's a Signal for texting, and I find Twitter (or Mastodon) more acceptable on social networks.

As for TikTok, I do not consider it necessary to live, but there are social circles where it is required. In that case, it makes sense to stay on the network, but there is still a need to be critical and look for a way out of that network to an alternative

Alternatives

I also offer alternatives to popular social networks.

• You can use Signal to write messages. It's an open source end-to-end encrypted messaging application. That is, even if someone intercepts your message before it arrives, they cannot decipher it. Plus, it's not complicated to set up, anyone can do it. And if you want to use few apps on your mobile, you can set it up as an sms-app on your mobile: whoever has Signal, that's spelled out via Signal, who doesn't, that's spelled out via text. This will not change the total number of applications in use.
• If you're annoyed that social network algorithms aren't open-source, use RSS feeds. This is the old open source alternative to social networking, where you set up which things you watch and are therefore not fooled by algorithms. There are many apps that support it, like AntennaPod on podcasts or newsboat to terminal.
• You can use the prism breakpageto find alternatives to programs that collect data.

Did you like the article? Maybe you'll like my article about learning foreign languages, or differential calculus.