The Price

One of the things I love about being a writer is participating in is social media. I am active on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, Goodreads, Twitter, and YouTube. Through social media, I am able to learn what is going on, in my city and around the world. I am able to interact with friends and family, and online friends. I also have the opportunity to share my projects, photography, book publications, and blog posts such as this one.

The leader of the social media market for the last few years has been Facebook. However, over the last decade, Facebook has begun to fade.

At one time, I had close to 400 friends on my Facebook account; I now have less than 100. Of course, I am using the word “friend” in the social media sense of the word. Because of my writing, I have connections with people around the world. As such, I have not met most of the people that I am friends with online.

To my observation, other social media outlets are booming; Instagram, Twitter and YouTube are dominating the social media focus.

Facebook is quickly becoming today’s version of My Space, a once booming social media platform that has become obsolete.

Reports has millions of users leaving Facebook. But why?

Here are my reasons for not wanting to participate on the Facebook social media platform:

I watched the film “The Great Hack”, now streaming on Netflix, which details how Facebook user profiles were compromised by Cambridge Analytica, a conservative marketing firm.

User data was collected from 87 million Facebook users and given to Cambridge Analytica without the user's knowledge or consent. Countless photographs, posts, videos, and other content was created to inundate undecided voters towards a particular candidate. In fact, Cambridge Analytica was hired by the Trump campaign to get him elected.

The trailer for the film “The Great Hack”:

Where does Facebook stand in this scenario? Were they aware that user data was being given to Cambridge Analytica? Reports show that Facebook was aware of this activity in the year 2015, well before the 2016 Presidential election.

“Internal Facebook correspondence from September 2015, released as part of a US government lawsuit on Friday, reveals new details about Facebook’s early knowledge of potentially improper data collection by Cambridge Analytica. The existence of the internal discussion was first reported by the Guardian in March 2019.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/23/cambridge-analytica-facebook-response-internal-document

Brittany Kaiser, the whistleblower featured in the film, calls Facebook: “the biggest threat” to the Democracy of the United States.

For more on this issue, I recommend the book “Mindf*ck: Cambridge Analytica and the Plot to Break America” by Christopher Wylie.

https://www.amazon.com/Mindf-Cambridge-Analytica-Break-America-ebook/dp/B07VP1T786/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1579271167&sr=1-1

For those not familiar with Cambridge Analytica, they had another political project under their power: The Brexit Campaign.
" A U. K. parliamentary commitee has published new evidence fleshing out how membership data was passed from UKIP, a pro-Brexit political party, to Leave.EU, a Brexit supporting campaign active in the 2016 EU referendum-via the disgraced and now defunct company, Cambridge Analytica."
https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/30/brittany-kaiser-dumps-more-evidence-of-brexits-democratic-trainwreck/

"The U.K.'s referendum decision to leave the European Union, in fact, became 'the Petri dish' for a Cambridge Analytica (CA) experiment, says Guardian journalist Carole Cadwalladr. She broke the story of how the political consultancy, led by Eton-educated CEO Alexander Nix, applied to the the democratic operations of the U.S. and U.K., and many other countries, over a chilling 20+ year history techniques normally used by 'psyops' operatives in Afghanistan."
https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/23/the-great-hack-netflix-doc-unpacks-cambridge-analytica-trump-brexit-and-democracys-death/

Another reason I have issues with Facebook: they changed their policies on political ads. There are no restrictions on information distributed on the social media platform. Much like what happened with Cambridge Analytica, any information can now be shared on Facebook, whether it has any basis in truth or not.

“Facebook's updated advertising rules could allow politicians to post ads that contain falsehoods without violating any of the company's terms. Last week the social networking site altered and thinned out its rules on misinformation so that politicians and political parties are exempt from fact-checking requirements.”

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-biden-facebook-misleading-ads-1463054

Case in point: the Trump campaign put an ad on Facebook citing corruption from Vice President Joe Biden. It was entirely false, with no basis in reality, and Facebook refuses to take the ad down.

“Saying it made false accusations, CNN immediately refused to air the advertisement. But Facebook did not, and on Tuesday, the social network rejected a request from Mr. Biden’s presidential campaign to take it down, foreshadowing a continuing fight over misinformation on the service during the 2020 election….”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/technology/facebook-trump-biden-ad.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR0Jj1s-SGjnwEmO6p8dws4GU5U0eV3C_g0NzAePme-9ZCCIMDwOD_qwpsI

Facebook global elections policy chief Katie Harbath made this statement in rebuttal on this issue:

“Our approach is grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is…Thus, when a politician speaks or makes an ad, we do not send it to third party fact checkers.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/09/facebook-tells-biden-campaign-it-wont-remove-false-ads-from-politicans.html

The possibilities inherent in this policy are staggering. Americans have been gas-lighted for four years now, with dubious stories in the news and social media, dubbed “fake news.” Without some adherence to the truth, Facebook users will continue to get misinformation. This isn’t science fiction, it is happening right now.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the Democratic candidates running for President, made objections to this decision. To make a point on the matter, she released her own political ad full of false information:

“The ad, placed widely on Facebook beginning on Thursday, starts with Ms. Warren announcing ‘Breaking news.’ The ad then goes on to say that Facebook and Mr. Zuckerberg are backing the re-election of Trump... ‘You’re probably shocked, and you might be thinking, ‘how could this possibly be true?’ Well, it’s not…We decided to see just how far it goes,’ Ms. Warren wrote, calling Facebook a ‘disinformation-for-profit machine’…”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/technology/elizabeth-warren-facebook-ad.html

In October 2019 Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before Congress and spoke of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, as well as its position on political ads. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was one of those questioning Zuckerberg; their exchange went viral online:

In contrast, Twitter has banned all political ads from its network.

“Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive…announced the decision on Twitter, saying he believed that the reach of political messages ‘should be earned, not bought.’ He said online political ads present challenges to civic discourse, including manipulated videos and the viral spread of misleading information ‘all at increasing velocity, sophistication, and overwhelming scale.’ He added that he worried that political advertising on the internet “has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/30/technology/twitter-political-ads-ban.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR2sb9cCFE5H9UCQtVf84J0lrziCjQeOED66a_E2rgqe0TL2It6athGOeyk

Two weeks ago, Facebook addressed that changes would be coming to Facebook regarding this policy. It won’t ban the false ads from appearing on Facebook; instead, it will give users more control over what ads they are able to see.

“Pressure on Facebook to rethink its approach to political ads came from a wide array of federal regulators, digital experts and privacy advocates, as well as some of the company’s own employees. They argued that its policies coarsened American political debate and exposed users to serious risks, including viral disinformation, which malicious actors could pay to promote on the site…But Facebook ultimately sided with President Trump’s reelection campaign and other political strategists, both Democrats and Republicans, who had fought fiercely behind the scenes to keep the digital tools that have helped them find new supporters, solicit donations and mobilize voters on Election Day…Ellen L. Weintraub, who serves on the Federal Election Commission, sharply criticized the tech giant’s approach as ‘weak’ and motivated by a desire to boost its profits.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/01/09/facebook-wont-limit-political-ad-targeting-or-stop-pols-lying/

This is a dangerous position to hold, to permit and encourage the publication and distribution of knowingly false information. It happened once already, in the 2016 election, and it will happen again without action.

Beyond everything I have mentioned in this post, the thing I find most unconscionable about Facebook and their policies is the revelation that they profit from selling advertising space to anti LGBTQ groups and hate groups.

In one year, Facebook made over $1 million in profit from such groups.

To be clear, the organizations deemed hate groups in this list have been designated as such by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

“The SPLC is considered one of the nation’s most prominent civil rights watchdogs. It classified the 38 organizations in question as hate groups because they have “beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

The entire list of hate groups, as well as the revenue paid to Facebook, can be found here:

https://gizmodo.com/facebook-has-banked-nearly-1-6-million-from-splc-desig-1838467645?fbclid=IwAR3ZiIesG60LnrFZXGopb9ueZM8EqkXr22EVny8qLyegg77B8zfYEJsVHMU

Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the freedom of speech. Unfortunately, hate speech is included under that protection. It is unconscionable to me that Facebook allows hate speech, and hate groups, to exist and flourish on their global platform, and that they literally profit from hate.

With all of these concerns in mind, and countless others that I did not share here, I have struggled with this moral dilemma. I have wrestled with this topic for months now. I have worked on this piece for 4 months.

Let me publicly say that I am appalled that Facebook gave Cambridge Analytica the collected data of 87 million users without their knowledge or consent. I detest that Facebook allows candidates to knowingly share false information through political ads. I loathe the fact that Facebook is literally profiting off of hate by selling advertising space to hate groups and anti-LGBTQ groups.

For me, I use Facebook business owner. I share my blog posts, book publications, and all marketing for my business on Facebook. I also utilize other social media platforms:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ehabla/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/LaLunaPress

Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/esperanzah/

Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/8368773.Esperanza_Habla

I also use Facebook as an individual. As a consumer, I can choose where to spend my time and my money. Do I purchase anything from any company that has discriminatory policies, or that literally profits from hatred? I personally do not. Case in point: Wendy’s, Chick-Fil-A, Wayfair, Papa John’s.

Let me publicly state that I find these facts about Facebook to be repugnant. I cannot, in good conscience, actively participate on Facebook anymore. I refuse to do business with a company that holds such dangerous policies and profits from hate.

That being said, I am a business woman. I have to have a social presence online. I cannot turn my back on my followers. I can’t erase myself from any social platform.

For those of you that follow me on Facebook, I thank you. I will continue to be a presence there. I will share blog posts, movie reviews, and book news through my three Facebook pages:

-Esperanza Habla:

https://www.facebook.com/EHablaUS/

-La Luna Press:

https://www.facebook.com/lalunapress/

-Esperanza Habla Flick Picks movie review page:

https://www.facebook.com/ehflickpicks/?modal=admin_todo_tour

Beyond that, I will not be active on Facebook.

This is a difficult choice for me. Through social media I have met countless friends from all walks of life, artists of varying art forms, from every corner of the world.

Facebook was once a gathering space for a culturally rich and vibrant artistic community. Yet, in the past few years, users have left Facebook by the millions. The once vibrant artistic community is a shadow of its former self.

If you follow me on Facebook, I appreciate your support and your business. I will maintain the three above pages on Facebook, as well as my Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest and Goodreads accounts.

It is an uncomfortable place to be, stuck in a moral dilemma. Yet, I have made the best decision for myself and for my business.

No one can hope to do business in the current age without a visible online presence. That is the price of doing business.