Politics has always been a topic of relevance or great importance since our generation was  young. Even when we as a society graduated to mobile cells phones with 4g capability politics was still readily available on yahoo news or Bbc. Politics has always been within focus, but politics began to focus on us consumers/user in 2008, specifically with Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.  He took to Facebook and other platforms to broadcast and spread his message of change. He reached out to the whole nation and his presence and voice was heard because of this. He also spent twice as much campaign money on social media than John McCain and posted 100 times as much but his background and personality is essentially what got him into office. The percentage of adults who took to the internet for news also increased 26% from 2000 to 2008.


Facebook didn’t need political support to survive before but in 2008 not only did everyone use facebook for political insight but everybody’s parents and grandparents were on the platform as well. This is the point where I walked away from Facebook, I did not want to interact with friends and  family on the same site. The 2008 election was great for politics, great for showcasing social networks potential, great for the older generation. But for a handful of people it ruined the old school facebook experience if you will. This was 9 years ago and of all the people who stopped using facebook within my friend groups are now back on Facebook. When I returned to facebook I noticed that it simply adapted all of my favorite aspects from other apps such as twitter and Instagram and copied them onto their platform. For example, I used to love twitter because of the video feature and facebook not only adopted that but also used instagram’s live feature. Facebook succeeded in becoming the determining factor of the 2008 elections for president Obama. Now surprisingly enough the most controversial president in our history Donald Trump managed to win his election because of Facebook videos while simultaneously gaining publicity via his Twitter handle. His success came because of his versatility on these platforms. On one hand there were videos of him, some true, some fake circulating facebook, It got so bad that people couldn’t tell what was fake or not, but since it was on facebook everybody shared and liked the post as long as it supported their favorable candidate.  Here is a video of some of his false claims.It wasn’t the content that helped him it was the fact that people were consistently talking about him, whether users supported him or not his face was making rounds around the internet and that was his whole strategy. On twitter his approach was a bit different from on Facebook but he did it for publicity nonetheless. His twitter handles featured and continues to feature a live stream of his conscious. Literally he will post the first thing that comes to mind. The republican twitter world ate this up and retweeted everything, while the liberal twitter world quoted and exposed his tweets. The reoccurring theme of him trending and his face being everywhere mirrors that of Facebook but merely markets a different audience. His tactics are still heavily criticized and don’t show the least bit of ethics, but the way he stirred the world up and got them to continuously talk about him lead to his presidency.


No surveillance


imgres-7I think the most threatening aspect of social networks is being overshadowed by cyber bullying and false news. We live in a crazy time with crazy values, especially when people would rather protect there feelings and flow of news than there identity and privacy. Although “feelings” and false news are problems no one questions the amount of information Facebook has access to. We learned that Facebook’s face recognition technologies are better than the CIA’s, that in itself is enough to raise some eyebrows. It has also been speculated and proven by some studies and articles like The price of Free that Facebook  sells information to third parties. So whats stopping Zuckerberg from potentially selling this information to the CIA and whats wrong with the CIA having such access? If allowing the CIA certain information sworn private by Facebook is morally wrong then why isn’t selling to advertisers seen in the same light. I think people are too distracted by more popular issues with technology to actually read what they are giving access to when accepting terms and conditions. Reading through all of those pages is a nuisance but perhaps  that is because such companies don’t want you to read them. How is it that the user manual is one sentence and the terms and conditions are 5+ pages. It is such a well known fact that people dont read these conditions that companies have been known to hide financial compensation within the terms and conditions behind a simple email address. Once this issue is addressed I believe a more private platform will be invented and made available free with the same privatization as telegram. We learned that telegrams producers are so serious about privacy that Putin single handedly kicked them out, thats the type of guaranteed security my friends and I can get behind.  Perhaps telegrams producers will even be responsible for this new social media. A safe network like this is necessary because if Facebook or twitter were to go down theres no saying how much information would be exposed. Americans operate under the “if it’s not broken then don’t fix it” mentality. Therefore mo one will emphasize the value of privacy until all of there information gets stolen and unfortunately a cyber attack might be essential in pushing us towards a more private world. Eventually people will want some type of security in the event of a cyber war or hacking and companies such as telegram are in a perfect position to inherit such cyber responsibilities.