Digital Implications: What Have We Unleashed?
By: Bob Morris
Tags: Privacy, Social Media, Social Media Marketing, Digital Marketing, Startup

I’ve recently celebrated 25 years in the digital industry. That’s a long time. It began with a 1.44MB disk and 4 colors and now… Your time is valuable, so let’s get to the key insights.

What happened to the web and the Fairness Doctrine?

Why do Terms of Service and User Agreements matter?

Let’s take a step back. In the early days of the web, we dealt with issues such as intellectual property, copyrights, etc. This is when “framing” content was so controversial. Do you remember those days? We had very little to worry about because we didn’t know what the next evolution looked like, and with limited bandwidth, the personal effort to access content was a time consuming and relatively low return experience; but hey, we were on the world wide web and were pioneers. Jump forward 25 years and we can now look back and see that we’ve “unleashed the beast.” Let’s start with our last election cycle and what we now know from Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, Google and the rest of the media players (i.e. Huffington Post, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Daily Beast, etc.). So, I’ll begin with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Yes, the agency we either loathe or love. Way back in 1949, The FCC introduced the fairness doctrine. This was a policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance through a lens that was “honest, equitable and balanced” while allowing the airing of opposing views on those issues, especially in context of political discussions. As the Washington Post article from 2011 noted Broadcasters had an active duty to determine the spectrum of views on a given issue and include those people best suited to representing those views in their programming. Additionally, the rule mandated that broadcasters alert anyone subject to a personal attack in their programming and give them a chance to respond, and required any broadcasters who endorse political candidates to invite other candidates to respond. However, the Fairness Doctrine is different from the Equal Time rule, which is still in force and requires equal time be given to legally qualified political candidates.¹

I’ll date myself, but do you remember when local broadcast stations had a “commentary” with a disclaimer that the views expressed were not those of the network? In 1987, the FCC eliminated the rule, and in 2011 the policy was removed from the Federal Register. And with the elimination of the rule coupled with the growth of an “always on” digital experience across platforms, we now have an incredibly fractured and biased media.

Deciphering between what is biased, unbiased, accurate, inaccurate or fraudulent and truthful is now nearly impossible. Even sites such as Snopes, MBFC, and FactCheck.org, all focused on ensuring accuracy in content, have demonstrated their willingness to allow for bias.

A “license” was once required to operate as a media company. Today, the blending of truth, deception, untruth, opinion, bias and fraud has effectively become the status quo with the responsibility being placed on the individual consuming the information to determine the validity. Let’s dig deeper on this one. The challenge was — is this information accurate comparatively to other journalists writing on the same or a similar topic? Now, as we’ve become well aware through the Cambridge Analytica controversy, it’s no longer “easily” possible to get to “truth” without bias. The content you see is based on what an algorithm is programmed to present to you. As we move further into AI and ML, these algorithms, once developed, will evolve on their own, further deepening the segmentation of what each of us view, ultimately defining our “understanding” of subjects. This understanding becomes our perception and opinion. Think about this for a moment. Is Facebook a media company? Absolutely. Is Google a media company? Absolutely. Having said this, as companies focus on social policies, campaigns and outreach, when do they cross the line into media companies? How different is Facebook with Instagram or Snap Inc. with Snapchat from Viacom or Liberty Media? Keep reading and you’ll get to thoughts, perspectives and maybe answers — *if you agree that they’re not biased. I had to add that disclaimer.

Whether you agree or disagree with regulation, the current situation is clearly not optimal, and self-regulation has further exacerbated the challenge. Left unchecked, whether individual or corporate-owned, consolidated influence is growing. The power of Facebook and Google, through their algorithms coupled with a large-scale following of individuals that “influence” perspectives represent challenges that legislative bodies haven’t previously encountered. Any individual can become a “broadcaster” with nearly unlimited reach. The reality is, left unchecked/unregulated the core underpinning of the Internet — democratization of information, becomes its own achilles heel as what is “truth” becomes more difficult to ascertain and bias becomes the norm. Ironically, self-governed platforms such as Wikipedia have suffered from this issue from their inception.

Let’s build on the issue of truth and bias with the issue of why terms of service and user agreements matter? The latest issue with FaceApp serves as a cautionary tale for why these matter and why individuals need to take privacy seriously. Companies can be nefarious in their terms of service and user agreements. Unfortunately, buried deep within the pages of a legal agreement between yourself and the site or app you’re using are terms that in any “normal” course of disclosure you would never agree to accept. Cookies are simple — yes or no. Go to incognito mode in Chrome, etc. It’s the complexity of how your data is aggregated, combined with third-party data sources (DMPs) and then applied within the experience and across the web. It’s how this data gets used that creates the challenge. It’s also the fact that in order to participate in digital experiences, in many instances, you have to forfeit your rights to your behaviors and your personally identifiable information (PII). Years ago when we built sites or apps that were focused on kids we had to ensure we were COPPA compliant — https://bit.ly/2O39U68. Today, Instagram, Snapchat, Hipstamatic, Vigo, TikTok, Imgur, etc. all essentially skirt or violate COPPA by allowing for targeting of ads and sponsored content through influencers. If you look at the fine print in the user agreements, you’ll be surprised to learn what all companies have “legally” defined is within their scope of “ownership” and what they can do with your data to monetize their business. Seriously, take a few minutes to read the current policy from Instagram. It’s clear that self-governance isn’t working and unfortunately, regardless of political affiliation or perspectives, when profits are involved, companies without constraints and ethical guidelines, will collect and use data in a manner that’s inconsistent with what is an individual’s best interest. In some instances, the basic business model doesn’t work without access to this data, which creates a significant issue as it relates to how certain companies can operate without using and selling your information to further the experience that you’ve signed up for. One of the most interesting and frightening issues I’ve experienced is that we’re raising digitally native generations that don’t understand how their data is used and, in fact, are naively willing to give away their personal information in return for access to communities (e.g. Fortnite, Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok, etc.).

Terms of Service and User Agreements matter — so read the fine print before you give away your rights to someone like FaceApp.

I hope this has been interesting and maybe it inspired a few thoughts on your part. Feel free to share them with me — Bob Morris, visionary_one@comcast.net or on https://twitter.com/digitalquotient.

¹ https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fairness-doctrine-in-one-post/2011/08/23/gIQAN8CXZJ_blog.html?utm_term=.ceb8c1432531