Every so often, Facebook hosts its a conference in San Francisco aimed at developers, media, and partners. Facebook Evolves from Social Network to Social Ecosystem.
Facebook As A Social Network Ecosystem And Environment. Apparently, the “appropriate protections” didn’t protect users from Facebook itself. What we should be asking Facebook isn’t how long this took or how many people were involved.
According to Adam Kramer (one of the Facebook scientists involved in the study)”…the actual impact on people in the experiment was the minimal amount to statistically detect (their reaction).” The company’s official statement said it had used “appropriate protections for people’s information.” It owns our data when the data is posted on a Facebook page and can do with it whatever it wants. That’s doubtful because Facebook’s infamous “terms of service” allow it to collect and use our personal data as it sees fit.
At no time did any of the users know about this. It did this for a week and recorded the content of the users responses and other posts day by day, finding that positive content read produced positive response and that the opposite was also true. Applying a list of “positive and negative” words, Facebook researchers filtered news content.
And Facebook, which has more personal data available on its servers than any other institution in the world, was the perfect investigator. These are the people who were able to determine how many users were visiting Brazil for the World Cup (and from what countries) before anyone got on a plane. Facebook uses some of that data for advertising and marketing but it also sells the data to other publications and takes grants for research from Universities and think-tanks.
The experiment was conducted by Facebook’s Data Science Team, the company’s department for collection and analysis of user data. According to an abstract of the study, “for people who had positive content reduced in their News Feed, a larger percentage of words in people’s status updates were negative and a smaller percentage were positive. As a result, Facebook learned a lot. Privacy and Security is essential get mcafee via mcafee.com/activate or AVG via www.avg.com/retail to get your devices safe and secure from hackers.
It edited the content seen by a select 689,000 of its users, overloading its news feed content with positive news for some users and negative news for others and then studied their posts in reaction without their knowledge. If the Internet’s content can affect your feelings, the manipulation of that content can exert powerful social control. Maybe that time will come when Facebook, Twitter and so forth might be viable for Democracy, which I still have yet to see how that is plausible, is so; but, otherwise, for now, those who are listened to, are those with power-The powerless are sterile and lacking any influence or consideration-never listened to, but ignored.
It would seem,then, according to the article, Democracy in the social media has a disadvantage in that no one really cares as to what any ‘joe-schmo’ online might impact government policy and meaningful social change. Note that when powerful men like Cameron or Zuckerberg want to be heard, they may turn to social media to boast about their influence, but actually to exercise said influence? Social media does have the potential to aid grassroots democracy, but more often it simply acts as a bigger podium for the powerful few, while everyone else is just there to pad out the audience numbers.
People once believed – and were encouraged to do so – that being able to tweet their elected representative directly, to join a Facebook group or to sign an online petition would give them a louder voice in our democracy. Perhaps the root cause is an increasing frustration with the limits of social media. Or, indeed, any social media remark made by any high-profile individual.
For the benefit of those who missed the mick-talking from Twitter users (including actor Patrick Stewart and comedian Rob Delaney), the original picture showed the Prime Minister on the phone with a theatrically sombre facial expression. On Thursday, in a public post, the 29-year-old Facebook founder wrote of his concern over the threat the US government poses to internet security. Zuckerberg contacts Obama: Social media might give us all a voice.
As The article point out, below, that speaking up on the social media is different from being heard. The Hub above has been written from the perspective of how addictive Facebook can be. I somewhat concur with Zuckerberg’s idea, although I will still need more data to check and balance his argument and that of this Hub. Neither of these numbers are great enough to suggest that social networks are creating easily influenced, volatile masses, but they do show that moods can spread online just as they do in real life.
“Researchers from the University of California and Facebook studied status updates on the popular social network that were identified as having a strong emotional slant – be it positive or negative – and looked to see if these had a knock-on effect on online friends. Some of the side effects of being involved with Facebook are our emotions, These are some of the most explosive interactive connection that one finds, and sometimes is involved in. They are harmful side-effects, and the following article below tries to quantify and present a reality that is now commonly found on Facebook. Facebook updates spread bad moods virally.