Paranoid facebook crazy talk
Over on a web forum I visit occasionally, we’ve been discussing the ‘Facebook’ website / social engineering experiment. And I think I may have gotten a bit ranty to be honest. Given that this is a more appropriate forum for such rantiness, I figured I’d reproduce my “summary position” here.
Even without following those discussions, it’ll come as no surprise to you that I’m firmly in the anti-Facebook camp. And when I say “firmly”, I mean in the sense that they’re having to build me a special camp in the next field… even further from the pro-Facebook camp than the regular anti-Facebook camp.
A couple of days ago, Facebook’s CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, made a speech about the company’s plans for the future. It contains an interesting statement. And by “interesting”, I mean “fucking terrifying”.
But before I get onto that, let me recap the main pre-existing arguments for never visiting the facebook site ever again.
They fall into three broad categories.
Firstly, the question of what happens to your information once it gets uploaded to Facebook is a very murky one. They certainly never explicitly claim copyright or ownership of your information, but they do claim all manner of usage rights that amount to almost the same thing in practice, even if not by legal definition. Within this same point is the fact that Facebook made it impossible to delete your account up until recently (when bad publicity forced them to change policy). They still make it difficult (you can’t delete your info, you ask them by email to do it for you) and — vitally — given that they are not obliged to notify you when they sell your data to a third party, you have no idea whether or not it’s already been flogged to UltraMegaCorp by the time they get round to deleting it.
And in practice, it almost certainly already has. Because Facebook have an ongoing relationship with numerous corporations to provide them with user data on a regular basis. These include Coca-Cola, Blockbuster, Verizon, Sony Pictures and Condé Nast. Amongst others.
Secondly, the political and philosophical problems posed by any large centralised database are, at the very least, worthy of cautious consideration. A consideration that few have given it. Mostly because it’s “voluntary”, not because people are unable to consider these things. When the government propose it and talk about it being mandatory, then people rightfully question the decision.
Thing is, the same problems that exist with a mandatory database also exist with a voluntary one if everyone volunteers.
These kinds of databases are an absolute nightmare from a social justice and civil-liberties standpoint. They encourage an uncomfortable power/control relationship between those who control the data and those who provide it. While on the one hand, the data will allow the database owner to track and identify broad trends within the data-set, it will also allow them to identify mechanisms to manipulate those trends, and the interactive nature of the Facebook website may even provide the mechanisms by which such controls are put in place.
“Is control controlled by it’s need to control?” as Burroughs perceptively asked. And yes, it is. But control still tends to come out better in its relationships with those it controls.
If you get me.
And this is problematic even if control is benign. Even if the guy at the top is Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Even if he’s in charge, the risks of him screwing things up are just too great.
Which brings me onto Number 3. It’s very much linked to the second argument, but deserves a bold intro of its own.
Thirdly, it’s not James Stewart running this thing. It’s the fucking CIA!
And no. That’s not a kooky conspiracy theory. Check it out for yourself. There’s been articles written on the subject in the mainstream media, and Facebook haven’t argued with any of them to the best of my knowledge (which I feel certain they would do if they were nonsense). One of the big finance guys behind Facebook is a board member for In-Q-Tel.
In the words of Tom Hodgkinson’s Guardian article…
I’d rather not link directly to their website, by the way. Yes I am that paranoid. The strapline for In-Q-Tel dot com?
Ohhhhhhkaaaaaay. I mean honestly. If you’re not going to be paranoid about those people, who are you going to be paranoid about? Eh?
Think about that for a second. I’m not saying that Facebook is the CIA, by the way. Merely that they are part-funded by a guy who kind of works for the CIA. So I think you’ll agree, despite their claims to the contrary, the idea that the CIA don’t have open access to this data, and aren’t analysing it for some reason is, oddly enough, the far-fetched one in this particular instance.
Weird, huh?
I have this image of the CIA opening up a website and asking people to volunteer as much personal information as possible. And of people signing up in their droves. 90 million people at last count. And I say to myself, “don’t be silly Jim, that image is too far-fetched. Even Philip K. Dick would have rejected it as too implausible for a short story”.
People, willingly donating a ton of data (that’s imperial, not metric by the way, we’re talking a lot of data) about themselves to the C.I. fricking A. For them to make shitloads of money with by selling it to Coca fricking Cola. Money to fund Eris-knowns-what, but I doubt it’s cat fricking sanctuaries. I mean these people will be classified as a terrorist organisation by future historians! Don’t be willingly surrendering your life history, personal philosophy, favourite books, music, films to them. Don’t tell them who your friends are, and where you like to hang out and what medication you’re on and what mood you’re in. Don’t open yourself up to these people! And don’t be filling in their silly little tests.
– What answer did you choose for question 6? “C” huh? Y’know only 8% of respondents chose “C”? Funny that… …
What do you mean: “funny that… …”?
– “Ohhhh… Nothing.”
Because they ain’t just making money off your data, they’re giving it to the folks downstairs in psy-ops. And they’ve been cooking up some deeply strange stuff to do with it.
And look, when I say “these people”, they’re probably nice enough, y’know? Treat their friends and family well, and give to charity regularly. But they’re on the wrong mission. And that’s what’s important here.
It’s hardly a coincidence, therefore, that Peter Thiel (the power behind the throne at Facebook) should be a self-described neoconservative activist who espouses a philosophy that can be accurately summarised as…
No. No. No! You don’t want to be helping people like him (a) get richer, or (b) do anything at all that he wants to do.
Right? When the nutter down the road starts ranting about destroying the real world and creating a new one that he controls… you feel a bit sad for him and hope he’s feeling better soon. When a billionaire with CIA connections starts expressing those thoughts out loud… you hope you’ll not be the only one at the barricades come the day.
Anyways, that’s my Facebook rant. Sorry it went on so long, but it’s always good to get that kind of thing off your chest.
(and to those who say, ‘But I don’t give my real details’, I would suggest that doesn’t actually invalidate most of the above… even assuming they ain’t logging your IP address. Which, let’s face it, they probably are. If the people behind Facebook asked you to help them out with this social engineering experiment they’re running, would you really want to take part even under condition of anonymity? Really?)
Anyways, the recent development that sparked this little outburst is the news that the CEO of Facebook (the chap on the throne, situated in front of Peter Thiel) gave a recent speech in which he outlined the next steps for the company. It included the line…
Is it just me that doesn’t want those people to have that kind of product?
UPDATE 3:30pm: As pointed out in the comments below, and upon re-reading The Guardian article, it does seem like I may have misinterpreted the financing of Facebook. Although a director of In-Q-Tel is a major advisor to Facebook, there’s no evidence provided that Facebook is actively funded by them. So it may well be that they are not benefitting financially from the company. I stress “may”, because I still feel that many of the connections between the US intelligence community and Facebook will be — almost by definition — clandestine. The CIA, like all national secret services, is not an organisation known for conducting its business in public. Even if they are not direct investors in the corporation, I believe they will still benefit financially, as well as in other ways, from having access to the information provided by Facebook users. Thanks to Michael, in the comments, for highlighting the potential inaccuracy.
It’s always smart to be careful with your personal data. I won’t dispute that. With that said, you’re including glaring inaccuracies in here to make your point stronger, which is obviously a little disingenuous.
The CIA isn’t making money from Facebook. So to say they’re making ‘shitloads of money…to fund Eris-knowns-what’, that is incorrect, and you know it is, based on your description of their arrangement.
As for the second paragraph I quoted above, the stuff you cite is all either optional or even non-existent. What medication you’re on? I’m pretty sure there’s no We-Take-Prozac Facebook group. All the other stuff you mention is all optional. Personally, I’m not concerned that the CIA might know I’m a libertarian, and if I was, I just wouldn’t put it.
Facebook’s privacy and data policies are worth examining. Only by putting pressure on them can we force them to be more transparent. But to suggest a nefarious plot by our government, or even suggest the possibility of such, well I think it’s a bit irresponsible to make that case with either false or misleading data. The world is a scary enough place as it is… let’s avoid hyperbole and concern ourselves with issues of practical importance.
July 25th, 2008 | 1:16pm
by Michael
I’m reading the Guardian article now. Again, I want to emphasize that my criticism is aimed merely at hyperbole, which I think detracts from the legitimate concerns people should have about Facebook. This author quite clearly has a bias against conservative ideology, Facbeook, the CIA, etc. Lies undermine an argument; they don’t make it stronger.
Is editorial quality so poor in the UK that it’s okay to state that 1999 comes after 2001 in order to make a point?
July 25th, 2008 | 1:57pm
by Michael
Disagree Michael (as you’d expect).
Firstly, as investors in Facebook, “the venture-capital wing of the CIA” are presumably expecting a return on that investment. In fact, I assume the reason almost all venture capital gets provided (whether the CIA are in the picture or not) is to reap a profit — and a significant one at that.
As for your second point, regarding “the medication you’re on” (and such like) being voluntary information. I’m not disputing that. In fact, I think I kind of labour that point somewhat, emphasising the voluntary nature of all this information to emphasise the fact that we have a choice as to whether we participate or not.
The fact is that millions of people are providing that information. And that is extremely worrying for society as a whole (in my opinion).
So when you say that “I’m pretty sure there’s no We-Take-Prozac Facebook group”, I can’t check it up (not being a member), but I’d put money on you being wrong. I’d put money that there’s a prozac support group (or some such) and that it has plenty of members. (and if not ‘prozac’ specifically, then it’ll be under ‘depression support’ or ‘anxiety support’ or whatever).
If it’s not there, then paint me very surprised.
Finally, I think you may be guilty of missing much of my point when you write…
“Personally, I’m not concerned that the CIA might know I’m a libertarian, and if I was, I just wouldn’t put it.”
I’m not really suggesting that the CIA are reading individual profiles (90 million of them…?) And my statement about “taking part on condition of anonymity” was meant to refer to that. I’m saying that the information they access, when analysed, allows them to identify and greater understand broad social trends, and by extension provides them with a tool to exert even greater control and influence over those trends.
And with that statement, I hope you see (and this refers to your second comment also… I acknowledge, by the way, the bad editing of that article and I even accept that the author allows polemic to interfere with his point at times) this is not a politics-free zone. This blog uses hyperbole as a deliberate stylistic device. I’d go so far as to suggest that the title of the blog post kind of gives that fact away. I wasn’t just being ironic when I chose it. And you don’t really think I’d swear quite so much if I was being strictly objective in my approach, do you? There’s an agenda here, and it’s overt. I don’t like hidden agendas.
I am socially liberal. Verging on the libertarian. But I am economically collectivist (in an extensive, but restricted, sense). ‘Anarcho-syndicalism’ it’s sometimes called. But that term is out-of-date, rooted as it is in the industrialism of the late 19th century.
And that’s an agenda I push openly here. It’s also the reason this blog is published under an alias. Which is not to say, “anonymously”. My identity is no secret and can be easily discovered. I’ll even email it to anyone who wants to know but can’t be arsed to do the requisite asking around (though I don’t want it published on the site). But as someone currently within academia, I need to make a clear distinction between my academic work on the one hand, and my political and social advocacy on the other.
This blog falls firmly into the second category. Which is not to say I don’t want it taken seriously (though that’s entirely up to the reader), merely that it should be viewed as something in that second category.
July 25th, 2008 | 2:15pm
by Jim Bliss
Also, Michael, it’s worth pointing out that the one glaring flaw in The Guardian article that you’ve discovered, is flagged and corrected at the very beginning of the article:
I do agree though, the original error was almost certainly a result of the author getting a little carried away with his polemic.
July 25th, 2008 | 2:21pm
by Jim Bliss
Okay, I think you make a fair point about the CIA being able to understand broad social trends. Being on the conservative side of libertarianism (with an emphasis on economic liberalism – classical liberalism, not American liberalism) I don’t share your concerns about secret plots and government control, but I do acknowledge the possibility. Well structured rebuttal.
I will dispute your first point though. In-Q-Tel is not an investor in Facebook. Greylock, a minority investor in Facebook, who is not a board member or a majority owner, and therefore has zero operating control over Facebook, has a partner who is a board member in In-Q-Tel. Howard Cox’s role at In-Q-Tel would be purely advisory, he would have zero operating control there. Greylock is also not an investor in In-Q-Tel, which is 100% financed by the CIA. Therefore the CIA does not control, advise, or profit from Facebook.
July 25th, 2008 | 2:26pm
by Michael
I’ve not altered the original text of the piece, Michael, but I have added an update to take into account your point (in the second paragraph of comment 5). I don’t accept “as fact” that the CIA does not control, advise or profit from Facebook. I do accept that the evidence available is not conclusive, however.
As I say though (or at least “imply”). I don’t believe for a moment that the CIA play by the rules. And their connections to Facebook, the uses to which they could put such a database and such a company, combined with the politics of the people who run the company, make it implausible that the two aren’t entwined to an even greater extent than I originally suggested. They share the same agenda and the same dinner tables.
July 25th, 2008 | 2:40pm
by Jim Bliss
Although as a broader discussion, this could quite easily get bogged down along ideological lines, I will say that I find it unlikely that a libertarian like Thiel – who believes so strongly in limited government and subverting government controls – would act to increase government control. That seems to be a contention more likely founded in ideological bias than in rational argument.
July 25th, 2008 | 2:46pm
by Michael
That is indeed a rather different discussion, Michael. And strangely enough, it’s one in which we’d probably agree about much.
I’m not sure if you’re aware, but my own current area of study is psychoanalysis (after spending years as an engineer… go figure!) Specifically the psychodynamics of large groups. Cultures even.
There’s plenty of people who dismiss such things as kooky. And that’s fine too. I’m not standing for office, just writing down how I see the world. People can do what they choose with that information. Including dismiss it.
Anyway, that’s not strictly relevant here, but may provide a little illumination on where my thinking is coming from.
In the case of Thiel. My reading of the situation would not be that he believes in increasing government control, but that he shares many of the same aims as the intelligence services (not “the government” as a whole). Also, I would almost guarantee that he believes himself totally in control of the relationship (whatever it is) that exists between Facebook and the CIA. Furthermore, I’d almost guarantee that he’s wrong in that belief.
But that is — as has been said — another discussion.
July 25th, 2008 | 2:58pm
by Jim Bliss
I actually think that’s probably a very interesting area of study. I wasn’t aware that was your expertise.
I came upon this blog because I have a Google alert set-up for any mention of Thiel in News or Blogs. 95% is garbage or recycled news items but occasionally there’s something interesting. I’m only 22 and torn between a love of technology and wanting to do VC or entrepreneurial work in the Bay Area and a love of finance and wanting to do hedge fund work (my current job) in Connecticut. Given that he does both, and throw in our shared interests in libertarian philosophy and the Singularity Institute (which I’ve followed long before I knew who Thiel was) and it’s an intellectual match made in heaven, so to speak.
I’d be curious to hear what you think Thiel’s and the CIA’s aims would be with respect to Facebook, especially how those aims relate to your area of study. I would be much more convinced if I had a better understanding of how you think analysis of broad social trends would aid the intelligence community.
July 25th, 2008 | 3:12pm
by Michael
Well, I’d hesitate to use the word “expertise”, Michael. I know just enough about the subject to have a real sense of how little I know about it. Socrates would be proud, I’m sure. It’s my area of study, rather than area of expertise.
Anyway, there’s really two questions / discussions suggested by your comment. First, what agenda would be shared by a libertarian neocon futurist and the CIA? Second, why would the Facebook database be useful to that agenda?
Both could end up being quite long discussions, involving a lot of hand-gestures, exasperated sighs and pints of beer. But without the lure of beer to keep us going, I think I might be able to find a short-cut through. Because I suspect, when expressed in neutral language, the answers may be fairly uncontroversial.
What is the goal of the CIA? What is its agenda? Well, it’s the same as any other national secret service. The fact that it is better financed than any other is the only thing that makes it worthy of all the attention it receives. The tactics it uses are no better or worse than the those used by the equivalent organisations in numerous other nations.
And the goal of the CIA, ultimately, is to promote US interests in the world. Now, that statement can be phrased how you wish. “Anti”: The CIA attempts to extend American influence over other nations to the benefit of the US. “Pro”: The CIA attempts to protect America and its interests abroad from any potential threat.
But when it comes down to it: “The goal of the CIA, ultimately, is to promote US interests in the world” covers all the bases, and is as neutral as the phrase “US interests” can be in the mind of any given reader.
So what are “US interests” as perceived by the CIA? I would argue that they closely mirror the US corporate agenda. So ultimately we are talking about the promotion of US economic interests around the world, by the removal of any possible threat to those interests. [EDIT: I don’t think I need to explain why this is an agenda that would be shared by Thiel. Or do I?]
This would entail, therefore, the promotion of the idea of free markets, broadly-defined capitalism, and more recently a kind of active consumerism, whereby people define themselves more and more by their ability to consume. This trend may well have always been there in human societies, but we have developed a culture that’s elevated it to a form of mass psychosis (in my view).
This is the vision that some people within the CIA (those tasked with it) are attempting to actively promote around the world. It’s a vision that I find deeply disturbing.
I don’t think it’s controversial to suggest that there are people in the CIA, in strangely named departments with a ‘Psy’ prefix, actively engaged in schemes to manipulate the masses into pursuing this vision.
We may disagree on the likely effectiveness of such schemes (or even on whether or not they are truly “disturbing” at all). And there are those who would insist that they are entirely ineffective. A bunch of nonsense psychobabble. But even they would probably concede that an organisation like the CIA would be trying such things.
So, if you believe “such things” can be done effectively (even relatively easily) and you find the CIA agenda to be disturbing, then the notion is obviously a concern.
And look, the ‘CIA’ thing is really just a shorthand. The thesis I’m currently writing is about the psychodynamics of free markets. This kind of cultural manipulation is going on constantly, and it’s not the CIA. It’s every advertisement on TV. It’s the billboards you pass on the way to work. It’s the fact that everyone in the English speaking world thinks of hamburgers when I say “I’m lovin’ it”.
So here’s the thing. If you believe that the CIA (et al) is incapable of shaping the desires of the masses in any meaningful way, then who cares if they have access to the Facebook database? Maybe they could still use it to hunt down radicals or something, but that’s not my big objection (though it is an objection).
But if they do have that ability to some extent (massive funding and the ability to act outside most legal constraints isn’t necessary, but does help) then Facebook can be — if nothing else — a highly effective feedback mechanism. A way to monitor the success or failure of projects, and presumably to tweak and modify tactics to achieve the desired outcome.
I might even go further and suggest that the Facebook website could itself be used as an active part of such a project, rather than just a monitor, but that would be speculation.
Because, and this is important, I’m not suggesting I know what methods the CIA uses to shape public opinion and desire. I can speculate, of course. I can make educated guesses based upon the tactics and methods used by the private public relations industry. But, by definition, I don’t know exactly what the CIA are up to. So I’m not going to speculate too much as it wouldn’t be all that useful. Instead let me suggest — if you get the time, it’s in 4 one hour segments which is a commitment in these days of accelerated living — you check out Adam Curtis’ Century of The Self. It could be viewed on google videos last time I checked, and gives the most accessible introduction to the use of psychodynamic theory as a tool to control the public mind that I’ve found. It has an agenda, and it’s one I sympathise with, but it’s well-researched and certainly provides food for thought, even if you disagree with it.
July 25th, 2008 | 4:35pm
by Jim Bliss