{"id":280,"date":"2017-05-16T19:53:55","date_gmt":"2017-05-16T19:53:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/chapter\/15-1-media-and-government\/"},"modified":"2017-05-16T19:53:55","modified_gmt":"2017-05-16T19:53:55","slug":"15-1-media-and-government","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/chapter\/15-1-media-and-government\/","title":{"raw":"15.1 Media and Government","rendered":"15.1 Media and Government"},"content":{"raw":"
\n

Facebook Versus the FTC<\/h2>\n
\n

Figure 15.1<\/span> <\/p>\n \"15.1.0\"<\/a>

Brian Solis - Mark Zuckerber f8 Keynote<\/a> - CC BY 2.0.<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n

In May 2010, the social networking website Facebook was thrown into the news when its chief executive officer, Mark Zuckerberg, announced new changes to the site\u2019s privacy policy. Although the announcement alone did not necessarily garner heavy attention from the news media, the involvement of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ramped up public interest.<\/p>\n

The previous month, several watchdog groups had sent letters to Congress and the FTC asking for an investigation of Facebook\u2019s privacy policy. The letters attacked the site\u2019s privacy policies, which dated from December 2009 and had been designed to provide users more control over privacy settings. However, PC Magazine<\/em> noted, \u201cgiven Facebook\u2019s move toward a more open format as it integrates status updates with search engines like Google and Bing, the site encouraged its users to make more of their data public, and made some of the default settings more open (Albanesius, 2010).\u201d<\/p>\n

Essentially, Facebook provides three default options for sharing information: with \u201ceveryone,\u201d \u201cfriends of friends,\u201d or \u201cfriends only.\u201d Zuckerberg explained the privacy policy by saying,<\/p>\n \n We recommended that there be large pieces of information in each of these buckets. For friends only, that\u2019s all of the really sensitive stuff. For friends of friends, it could be who can see the photos and videos of you, which is actually the majority of the content people share on the site. And then for everyone, it\u2019s basic information and status updates and posts like that (Fletcher, 2010).\n <\/span>\n

Concern grew that some of Facebook\u2019s default privacy settings allowed everyone, regardless of their level of connection to a user, to access some personal information. In their open letter to Congress, privacy watchdog groups addressed these concerns by stating, \u201cFacebook continues to manipulate the privacy settings of users and its own policy so that it can take personal information provided by users for a limited purpose and make it widely available for commercial purposes\u2026. The company has done this repeatedly and users are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated (Hachman, 2010).\u201d In light of users\u2019 outrage, the letter asked the FTC to get involved.<\/p>\n

The FTC is a congressional commission designed to oversee and enforce consumer protections. Despite\u2014or perhaps because of\u2014this stated goal, the FTC\u2019s lack of involvement in Facebook\u2019s privacy settings frustrated many individuals; one letter to Congress \u201copenly worried that the FTC either lacked the power or the motivation to pursue questions of privacy at Facebook (Hachman, 2010).\u201d The FTC responded that the issue was of \u201cparticular interest\u201d to them, but as of this writing, no official action has been taken.<\/p>\n

The issue has prompted a broader discussion of the government\u2019s role in regulating information disseminated on the Internet. The New York Times<\/em> articulated the discussion\u2019s central questions: \u201cWhat can government do to ensure that users have control of their own information, which might live on indefinitely on the web? Would regulation work? Or should government stay out of this arena (New York Times, 2010)?\u201d Facebook stands by the rights of its users, arguing that \u201cadult users should be free to publish information about their lives if they choose to do so (New York Times, 2010).\u201d However, Facebook did respond to the open letter and modified its privacy settings to make it easier for individuals to control their online identities. Yet the debate continues over online privacy and the government\u2019s role in maintaining this privacy. The recent buzz over Facebook\u2019s privacy policies is just one of many examples of the debate over government\u2019s place in the world of media. How is copyright protected across different media outlets? What material is considered appropriate for broadcast? Does the U.S. government have the right to censor information? This chapter explores these and other questions regarding the long and complex relationship between media and the government.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n

References<\/h2>\n\nAlbanesius, Chloe. \u201cFacebook Prepping Changes to Privacy Policy,\u201d PC Magazine<\/em>, May 21, 2010, http:\/\/www.pcmag.com\/article2\/0,2817,2364063,00.asp<\/a>.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nFletcher, Dan. \u201cTime<\/em>\u2019s Q&A With Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg,\u201d Time NewsFeed<\/em> (blog), Time<\/em>, May 27, 2010, http:\/\/newsfeed.time.com\/2010\/05\/27\/times-qa-with-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg\/<\/a>.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nHachman, Mark. \u201cFacebook Targeted by New FTC Privacy Complaint,\u201d PC Magazine<\/em>, May 7, 2010, http:\/\/www.pcmag.com\/article2\/0,2817,2363518,00.asp<\/a>.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\nNew York Times, \u201cShould Government Take On Facebook?\u201d Room for Debate<\/em> (blog), May 25, 2010, http:\/\/roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com\/2010\/05\/25\/should-government-take-on-facebook\/<\/a>.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t","rendered":"
\n

Facebook Versus the FTC<\/h2>\n
\n
\n

Figure 15.1<\/span> <\/p>\n

\"15.1.0\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Brian Solis – Mark Zuckerber f8 Keynote<\/a> – CC BY 2.0.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

In May 2010, the social networking website Facebook was thrown into the news when its chief executive officer, Mark Zuckerberg, announced new changes to the site\u2019s privacy policy. Although the announcement alone did not necessarily garner heavy attention from the news media, the involvement of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ramped up public interest.<\/p>\n

The previous month, several watchdog groups had sent letters to Congress and the FTC asking for an investigation of Facebook\u2019s privacy policy. The letters attacked the site\u2019s privacy policies, which dated from December 2009 and had been designed to provide users more control over privacy settings. However, PC Magazine<\/em> noted, \u201cgiven Facebook\u2019s move toward a more open format as it integrates status updates with search engines like Google and Bing, the site encouraged its users to make more of their data public, and made some of the default settings more open (Albanesius, 2010).\u201d<\/p>\n

Essentially, Facebook provides three default options for sharing information: with \u201ceveryone,\u201d \u201cfriends of friends,\u201d or \u201cfriends only.\u201d Zuckerberg explained the privacy policy by saying,<\/p>\n


\n We recommended that there be large pieces of information in each of these buckets. For friends only, that\u2019s all of the really sensitive stuff. For friends of friends, it could be who can see the photos and videos of you, which is actually the majority of the content people share on the site. And then for everyone, it\u2019s basic information and status updates and posts like that (Fletcher, 2010).
\n <\/span><\/p>\n

Concern grew that some of Facebook\u2019s default privacy settings allowed everyone, regardless of their level of connection to a user, to access some personal information. In their open letter to Congress, privacy watchdog groups addressed these concerns by stating, \u201cFacebook continues to manipulate the privacy settings of users and its own policy so that it can take personal information provided by users for a limited purpose and make it widely available for commercial purposes\u2026. The company has done this repeatedly and users are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated (Hachman, 2010).\u201d In light of users\u2019 outrage, the letter asked the FTC to get involved.<\/p>\n

The FTC is a congressional commission designed to oversee and enforce consumer protections. Despite\u2014or perhaps because of\u2014this stated goal, the FTC\u2019s lack of involvement in Facebook\u2019s privacy settings frustrated many individuals; one letter to Congress \u201copenly worried that the FTC either lacked the power or the motivation to pursue questions of privacy at Facebook (Hachman, 2010).\u201d The FTC responded that the issue was of \u201cparticular interest\u201d to them, but as of this writing, no official action has been taken.<\/p>\n

The issue has prompted a broader discussion of the government\u2019s role in regulating information disseminated on the Internet. The New York Times<\/em> articulated the discussion\u2019s central questions: \u201cWhat can government do to ensure that users have control of their own information, which might live on indefinitely on the web? Would regulation work? Or should government stay out of this arena (New York Times, 2010)?\u201d Facebook stands by the rights of its users, arguing that \u201cadult users should be free to publish information about their lives if they choose to do so (New York Times, 2010).\u201d However, Facebook did respond to the open letter and modified its privacy settings to make it easier for individuals to control their online identities. Yet the debate continues over online privacy and the government\u2019s role in maintaining this privacy. The recent buzz over Facebook\u2019s privacy policies is just one of many examples of the debate over government\u2019s place in the world of media. How is copyright protected across different media outlets? What material is considered appropriate for broadcast? Does the U.S. government have the right to censor information? This chapter explores these and other questions regarding the long and complex relationship between media and the government.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

References<\/h2>\n

Albanesius, Chloe. \u201cFacebook Prepping Changes to Privacy Policy,\u201d PC Magazine<\/em>, May 21, 2010, http:\/\/www.pcmag.com\/article2\/0,2817,2364063,00.asp<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Fletcher, Dan. \u201cTime<\/em>\u2019s Q&A With Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg,\u201d Time NewsFeed<\/em> (blog), Time<\/em>, May 27, 2010, http:\/\/newsfeed.time.com\/2010\/05\/27\/times-qa-with-facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hachman, Mark. \u201cFacebook Targeted by New FTC Privacy Complaint,\u201d PC Magazine<\/em>, May 7, 2010, http:\/\/www.pcmag.com\/article2\/0,2817,2363518,00.asp<\/a>.<\/p>\n

New York Times, \u201cShould Government Take On Facebook?\u201d Room for Debate<\/em> (blog), May 25, 2010, http:\/\/roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com\/2010\/05\/25\/should-government-take-on-facebook\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"menu_order":1,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-280","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":278,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/280","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/280\/revisions"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/278"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/280\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=280"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=280"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-hccc-massmedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}