Should we boycott Facebook because of Cambridge Analytica?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Should we boycott Facebook because of Cambridge Analytica?
Position‹2 of 3›: Regulate Facebook
Argument1 of 2›: Facebook is a Utility

Just like power and water, it's time to have the government take ownership for the public good.

The argument

Facebook has turned into a public utility and thus it should be subject to government regulation. As the Cambridge Analytica scandal has shown, the public is mostly not informed on how their personal data is used by Facebook and sold to third parties like Cambridge Analytica that use it for controversial purposes like microtargeted political campaigning. Today, a higher degree of transparency and accountability is needed for platforms like Facebook to operate. As the recent attempts of Facebook to reform and develop itself were rather unsuccessful and the Senate hearings of CEO Mark Zuckerberg were not conclusive, it seems as though the government is the only entity that can assure binding regulation and the respect of certain norms. Therefore, the government of the United States in which the company is registered, should produce legislation that forces social media platforms like Facebook to make their use of personal data more transparent and subject to a certain set of values. This would mean that the use for political campaigning as propagated by Cambridge Analytica would be regulated in the same way as traditional campaigning follows certain rules. Furthermore, if data processing norms are uniformized and controlled by the government, it would be easier for users to detect misuse and feel more protected on platforms like Facebook.

Context

The Cambridge Analytica scandal broke in 2018 when it was leaked that the company had collected personal data from over 87 million Facebook users to conceive multitargeted campaign strategies for their clients like the 2016 Leave campaign for Brexit or the election of Donald Trump in the US. Ever since, concerns about data protection and democratic manipulation have been voiced by the respective publics.

Premises

[P1]Facebook has become a public utility, yet the Cambridge Analytica scandal showed the public has no idea how its data is harvested and sold for purposes like microtargeted political campaigning. [P2] Facebook's own reforms were unsuccessful and the Senate hearings inconclusive, leaving government as the only entity that can impose binding rules. [P3] Legislation forcing transparency and uniform data norms would let political microtargeting be regulated like traditional campaigning and help users detect misuse. [C] Therefore, because Facebook is a utility, it should be regulated rather than merely boycotted.

Counter-arguments

1) The government shouldn’t be the entity regulating private companies. In a liberal economy, the market should be able to regulate itself without government intervention. The legislative process takes too long to account for the quick pace of change that social media platforms are subject to. 2) Regulation would make international competition fiercer.

Rejecting the premises

[P1]The free market regulates itself through the invisible hand.

Framing

Government intervention is the right measure to ensure Facebook follows stricter data protection rules.