How ’social’ are social media. Online civil rights.

How ‘social’ are social media? People are spending hours and hours on their twitter, Facebook, myspace, linkedin and so on. When we see people spending that much time somewhere, you’re wondering if they discovered a whole new world out there. I know that there are different discussions out there about internet being another world or an extension for the ‘real’ world.

But if we just approach the social media as a singular world. What does that mean for our rights?
In this essay I will try to discuss the debate on civil rights in social media using Gray’s Cyborg Bill of Rights. In his article “Citizenship in the age of electronic reproduction” Chris Hables Gray proposes this Cyborg Bill of Rights. Gray has written this bill of rights as an instrument to defend the rights of cybercitizens. Gray proposes that cyborgs can be many different things, including individuals. A cyborg is a entity which adds to or enhances its abilities by using technology

Since Gray proposed his bill, social media and communities went sky high. Millions and millions of people have found their way to a social network to communicate with friends, like minded and other interesting people. The question that rises, are the amendments proposed by Gray applicable to social networks. For this question I’ll use Facebook as the example of social networks.

The 10 Amendments, as written down by Gray:
1. Freedom of travel
2. Freedom of electronic speech
3. The right of electronic privacy
4. Freedom of consciousness
5. Right to life
6. Right to death
7. Right to political equality
8. Freedom of information
9. Freedom of family, sexuality and gender
10. Right to peace

1. Freedom of travel

The freedom of travel is hard to interpret for Facebook. When you see travel as navigation throughout the social network, you can say that there is freedom of travel. But restrictions for groups and personal profiles make you aware that Facebook has its limits. You can’t look into anyone’s profile or enter every group. Travelling in Facebook is restricted by group admins and your own privacy.

2. Freedom of electronic speech

In the last decade we had different discussions about laws and restrictions online. As is suggested in “The Virtual World as a Company Town” (Jenkins), there is not enough written down on how present day law should apply to virtual worlds, concerning the freedom of speech in particular. Jenkins notes that these virtual worlds might be the successors of the internet and thus it is important we assure our freedom of speech in these worlds.

Facebook doesn’t have a complete freedom of speech. This network is controlled and moderated by the company. There are rules which users have to obey. Moreover, Facebook users can report other users that they don’t trust. Or that can report spam or inappropriate content. When we compare this to ‘real life’ we can find a difference. Of course we’ve got limits to freedom of speech, controlled by the government. But in real life, this higher power is democratically chosen and constructed. The people controlling freedom of speech are chosen as a reflection of society. We can honestly say that this isn’t happening on Facebook.

3. The right of electronic privacy

Facebook states in their privacy policy that privacy mostly is a responsibility for Facebook users. They can make sure what they want to share with friends and other. Furthermore Facebook states:

“Facebook is a free service supported primarily by advertising. We will not share your information with advertisers without your consent. We allow advertisers to select characteristics of users they want to show their advertisements to and we use the information we have collected to serve those advertisements.”

After reading the whole privacy policy I suggest that Facebook users have a ‘reasonable’ level of privacy. A lot of the privacy is protected by rules and laws, like in real life. But where consumer information is often shared in real life (conducted by using your discount cards and so on), this happens less on Facebook. The protection of privacy makes Facebook usage more like citizenship.

4. Freedom of consciousness

Maybe a different right to compare to Facebook. But in a way there is freedom of consciousness in Facebook. Since there is no way for users or moderators to modify or change someone’s consciousness. This private part of a users is and must be protected in any environment. One’s consciousness is a basis for being.

5. Right to life

Every Facebook user can create his or her own profile. Being ‘alive’ on Facebook is controlled by the user and the company. In fact, we’re safer on Facebook than in real life. Facebook users are easier protected by the company and privacy rules. Its easier to harm someone in real live. Unfortunately, again the fact that Facebook as a company rules the network makes that our virtual life on the network depends on them.

6. Right to death

Interesting about Facebook is the fact that it’s quite easy to stop your ‘Facebook life’. In the account settings is a link to deactivate your account. I don’t know or this really deletes all your info that you spread around Facebook. But every death leaves memories behind….

7. Right to political equality

In Second Life everyone can have as much political influence as another user. The political power of a resident is not based on his economic holdings or social status. However when you look at how the real power is divided this right is not always granted. Although the content of Facebook depends on its users, it’s still owned by Facebook itself. Facebook has the absolute power in this world so cyber citizens on Facebook can not fully exercise their rights.

8. Freedom of information

“Citizens shall have access to all information held about them by governments or other bureaucracies.” (Gray, 2001)

Unfortunately this is neither the case on social networks as in real life. Governments and corporate business keep information form citizens most of the time. Transparency is getting bigger with the internet but control is still in hands of companies and the government. To achieve true citizenship according to Gray, this right must be given to all citizens. How will we organize social networks to achieve this?

9. Freedom of family, sexuality and gender

This right is right is one partly exercised on Facebook. Most Facebook users use their own name and pictures to create their profile. But it is possible to create a digital new person. On networks like Second Life, this is much easier. One can create a totally digital being. This is in line with a true utopian vision (McLuhan, 1962) where every individual can be him or herself and create their own identity. However, Facebook restrict too strange names and hopes that her users fill out their profile forms accurate. There is no totally freedom but you can bend the rules, like in rela life.

10. Right to peace

A users right to peace is mostly offended by spammers and hackers. Facebook tries to step up against threats from outside the network. They’re trying to defend there users but once in a while they fail. So your right to peace on Facebook isn’t guaranteed.

Fifty-seven years ago Marshall (1950) constructed a concept of citizenship that was build upon the notion that a citizen has rights: civil rights, political rights and social rights. This concept has been used as a basis ever since, sometimes criticized, sometimes extended but almost always used. Fifty-one years later Gray (2001) also based cyber citizenship upon rights.

Citizenship is a basis for almost every environment. Unfortunately, it’s not the main interest of developers and users of social networks. Rights on virtual worlds are getting a secondary priority after profit. With more and more people joining several social networks, it is important to think about the way we want to organize our virtual worlds. What to do with a Social Media Bill of Rights?

I need to thank @qwez because we once wrote a similar piece on the cyborg bill of rights and Second Life.