Question

Question: Is social media out of control? While SMIS are presented as a benefit to businesses and consumers, they also have a dark side. Read the attached article titled “The Case for Investigating Facebook” by David N. Cicilline, a member of the House of Representatives and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, and discuss.

Article:

A year ago, the world learned that Facebook allowed a political consulting company called Cambridge Analytica to exploit the personal information of up to 87 million users, to obtain data that would help the company’s clients “fight a culture war” in America. Since then, a torrent of reports has revealed that the Cambridge Analytica scandal was part of a much broader pattern of misconduct by Facebook. It has paid teenagers to spy on their behavior, even asking users “to screenshot their Amazon order history page,” according to the website TechCrunch. The company has secretly collected highly sensitive data through the back doors of other apps, such as ovulation trackers, to target ads at users “even if no Facebook account is used to log in and if the end user isn’t a Facebook member,” The Wall Street Journal reported. And in its pursuit of dominance, Facebook gave at least 60 device makers direct access to its users’ data. Those actions are under criminal investigation, The Times reported last week. Facebook has also engaged in campaigns to obstruct congressional oversight and to smear and discredit critics —tactics reminiscent of the big tobacco playbook. After each misdeed becomes public, Facebook alternates between denial, hollow promises and apology campaigns. But nothing changes. That’s why, as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law, I am calling for an investigation into whether Facebook’s conduct has violated antitrust laws. Since the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the Federal Trade Commission has confirmed that it is investigating Facebook to determine whether it violated a consent order it entered into with the commission in 2011. While we await the outcome of the commission’s investigation, other enforcement agencies and government authorities have already taken action. The attorney general for the District of Columbia filed a complaint months ago. German antitrust authorities issued an order finding that Facebook abused its dominance and limiting Facebook’s data collection practices. And an investigation by the British Parliament compared Facebook to a company of “digital gangsters” that considers itself “ahead of and beyond the law.” The F.T.C. is facing a massive credibility crisis. For years, privacy advocates have alerted the commission that Facebook was likely violating its commitments under the agreement. Not only did the commission fail to enforce its order, but by failing to block Facebook’s acquisition of Whats App and Instagram, it enabled Facebook to extend its dominance. How the commission chooses to respond to Facebook’s repeated abuses will determine whether it is willing or able to promote competition and protect consumers. If the commission does conclude that Facebook has violated the consent order, how it fixes this problem through a legal remedy will be a test of its effectiveness. The commission has the authority to impose substantial fines on Facebook. Given that the corporation had more than $55 billion in revenue in 2018 alone, even a fine in the low billions of dollars will amount to a slap on the wrist, a mere cost of doing business. Moreover, because Facebook is a repeat offender, it is critical that the commission’s response is strong enough to prevent future violations. America’s laws are not suggestions. When a company has repeatedly shown contempt for its legal commitments, the remedy must change how the company operates. Enforcement agencies can do this through deep reforms of the company’s structure. This includes removing members of the company’s board, or even top executives, along with other changes to the company’s business model to address dysfunction at the top. The F.T.C. can also pursue other ways to fix this problem. For example, after German antitrust enforcers found that Facebook abused its dominant market position, it required Facebook to stop combining different sources of its users’ data without their consent. But the commission should not stop there. There is also mounting evidence of anticompetitive conduct by Facebook that may warrant scrutiny by federal antitrust enforcers. For example, the social media goliath has reportedly systematically spied on its rivals, giving it valuable information on how people used competitive products. Facebook’s predatory acquisition strategy has also arguably resulted in fewer innovative services. When it bought TBH, a polling app popular with teenagers, Facebook announced that the app would still operate independently and under its own brand. Less than a year later, Facebook scuttled it due to “low usage.” Facebook also appears to have used its dominance to cripple other competitive threats by cutting them off from its massive network. In 2013, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, personally approved the company’s decision to block Vine, a fast-growing rival, from a critical Facebook feature, to the advantage of its own online video service. Finally, in what looks to be a dangerous power grab to head off antitrust action, Facebook recently announced plans to merge Instagram, Whats App and Facebook into one integrated product, furthering its monopoly power. Together, these reports suggest a disturbing pattern of anticompetitive conduct. Watchdogs and consumers alike report that the quality of Facebook’s products has declined. It has killed innovation and eliminated competitive threats. And the price for advertising on the platform has continued to rise. In other words, there is a smoking gun. It’s clear that serious enforcement is long overdue. David N. Cicilline, a member of the House of Representatives, is chairman of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial and Administrative Law. (Management Information System Course) PLEASE NEW ANSWERS!!!

Answer 1

Social media is the best platform to market the product. In the past decade, social media platforms have increased the profits and sales of the company. Hence, it has provided tremendous benefits. However, like a coin has two sides, social media also has a dark side. All of the consumers and companies must know the dark side of the social media marketing process. There is unintended digital drama because of the social media, and also the attached privacy concerns. The first unintended drama is that the individuals tend to post murders pictures or suicide videos on social media, which gives the negative impression of social media in the consumers' minds. Although, businesses might not have any part to play in the dram, but the users tend to take a break from the online platforms. The next main and prime issue is privacy concerns. Privacy concerns have started to pop up due to the increase in social media advertising. Companies tend to collect sensitive data from online social media platforms, as the companies take the data and sell to third parties for money. It consequently forms a bad image of the company in the minds of the consumers. The dark side also includes the identity fraud and theft on the online platforms. Hence, the dark side is evident, and out in the society. It has caused intentional or unintentional losses to many stakeholders.