Facebook Under Fire
The platform is publicly plummeting
January 24, 2021
Since my last op-ed on Facebook, many things have changed. However, the overall slippery slope theme remains the same. This tech giant has grown considerably over the past couple of years, increasing its influence and impact, and strengthening its control on content and creativity. Previously, I showcased how the platform uses algorithms and artificial intelligence to cater to its user’s interests and encourage more engagement (Spradlin, 2019). This is the business model Facebook uses to increase its value and draw in profits through the sale of advertisements. Currently, Facebook earns roughly $40 from each of its users every quarter, for a running total of about $160 per year (Gao, 2020). On a per user per year basis, that does not seem like much. To compare, most people pay $160 per month to have cable and internet. On the other hand, when you factor in Facebook’s 196 million daily users, it is quite clear how it has become a billion-dollar company. Nevertheless, more money and more users has resulted in more problems for Facebook, especially on the skirt of a global pandemic and a controversial politics.
Facebook’s “privacy tool” that was released and implemented in 2020 mines user data as it monitors off-Facebook activity (Tiffany, 2020). This allows them to gather information on its user’s personal interests, transactions, and product preferences. Have you ever searched for something on Google and then wind up seeing an ad for the very same thing in your newsfeed when you log back into Facebook? That feeling of a “big brother” watching over you is actually this very use of Facebook’s “privacy tool” in action and demonstrates how the platform interprets and utilizes its user’s personal data. Ironically, there is nothing private about it and it only serves as a tool to invade its user’s privacy. Essentially, this is Facebook’s way of collecting personal human interaction and behaviors online and monetizing it for profit. This gives them the ability to call up a carpet company and say “Hey, carpet company, there are 50,000 people in your area that are looking at getting carpet and for as little as $5 a day, we can advertise your business to all of them.”
Facebook’s image has really taken a toll throughout 2020. Investors do not like uncertainty. Filings submitted to the Securities Exchange Commission reflect the requests of shareholders for the establishment of an independent board. The reasons cited for this request include scrutiny from the government, the fact that currently only 1/3 of the board is independent, ongoing controversies, and a growing bad reputation for dysfunctionality. Shareholders have also requested reclassification of shares to protect their investment and gain more voting weight. Another request was submitted for a detailed risk-assessment of child sexually abusive material, as studies have shown Facebook is responsible for 94% of it. Safety concerns on this issue are stimulated with the platform implementing end-to-end encryption. Now, it has been unveiled publicly on the platform that Facebook’s search feature is also raising some frightening questions. As stated in the post below, if you search any 1 letter of the alphabet on Facebook, and go over to the video results, it returns all pornographic videos. I have tried it for myself, and it is true. These issues do not please investors and it surely will not go over well with many parents either, who have been dragged into the Facebook kids messenger feature by their children.
To add insult to injury, Facebook is currently being sued by multiple states individually. Most importantly, on December 9th, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission formally filed a lawsuit against Facebook for illegal monopolization. The complaint alleges that Facebook is in violation of antitrust laws by stifling competition in the social media market, after its acquisition of Instagram and WhatsApp, and restricting software developers from interconnecting with the platform using API’s (ftc.gov, 2020). Through judication, the FTC wants a permanent injunction issued against Facebook. They are requesting the platform be ordered to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, lift restrictions on API’s, and require it to receive authorization from the commission before any future merger or acquisition. Recent record disclosures show that Facebook spent a whopping $19.7 million lobbying their special interests in Washington, more than any other big tech company (Reklaitis, 2021). Unfortunately, it does not seem to be enough for them to hold a get out of jail free card in terms of their social media monopoly.
Countries around the world are turning the tables on Facebook. Stemming from 2016, we saw the political debacle about the Russians interfering with American elections by using of social media (bbc.com, 2018). Now, Facebook joins Twitter and YouTube in facing legislative action in Russia that will ban them throughout the country, under allegations that they have been censoring content in a bias manner (FE Online, 2020). The Australian government is currently considering whether to make the platform pay for news that is shared on their site (Cave, 2021). To combat, Facebook teamed up with Google and countered with the idea of just banning Facebook and Google services from Australian users if they become forced to pay for what news gets shared on their platforms. Ultimately, this fiasco just unsurfaced even more red flags of foreign affairs because it shed light into some other dark corners. For example, it was brought to light that Google, whom is Facebook’s left hand in the big tech playing field, had just performed an “experiment” in which they deliberately blocked Australian news sites from search results. Coincidentally, just hours before Google and Facebook took a stance against the Australian government for suggesting they be charged for sharing news, Google agreed to paying news publications in France. The contradictory behavior is highly questionable and counter-productive to anything either platform is trying to accomplish on a global level.
References
BBC.com. Dec 17, 2018. “Russia 'meddled in all big social media' around US election”. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46590890
Cave, Damien. Jan 22, 2021. “An Australia With No Google? The Bitter Fight Behind a Drastic Threat”. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/22/business/australia-google-facebook-news-media.html
FE Online. Dec 26, 2020. “Russia could ban Facebook, Twitter, YouTube for ‘censoring’ content”. https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/technology/russia-could-ban-facebook-twitter-youtube-for-censoring-content/2157891/
Ftc.gov. Dec 9, 2020. “FTC sues Facebook for Illegal Monopolization”. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-sues-facebook-illegal-monopolization
Gao, Michelle. Nov 3, 2020. “Facebook makes more money per user than rivals, but it’s running out of growth options”. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/03/facebooks-average-revenue-per-user-leads-social-media-companies.html
Reklaitis, Victor. Jan 22, 2021. “Facebook and Amazon set records in annual spending on Washington lobbying”. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/facebook-and-amazon-set-records-in-annual-spending-on-washington-lobbying-11611323639
Sec.gov. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. https://www.sec.gov/
Spradlin, Amanda. Feb 8, 2019. “The Influence of Facebook”. https://shopping-feedback.today/01/the-influence-of-facebook
Tiffany, Kaitlyn. Jan 28, 2020. “Facebook’s New Privacy Tool Is a Data Landfill”. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/01/off-facebook-activity-tool-download-website-data/605680/
About the Creator
Amanda Spradlin
Amanda Spradlin is the founder of Coincidental Chaos. She writes with the passion of a questionable mind. Any donations are appreciated!
Keep reading
More stories from Amanda Spradlin and writers in The Swamp and other communities.
Goodbye, Donald
Dear Mr. Trump, For the last 4 years, you have proudly held the office as President of the United States. Very outspoken and controversial, you always spoke your mind, regardless of how much backlash you received for it in return. The worst possible hand had been dealt to you during your term but you never folded. There are many people who do not agree with how you have been treated throughout your time in office. Unfortunately, most of them are now being silenced as well and labeled “extremists” (Guynn, 2021).
By Amanda Spradlin5 years ago in The Swamp
Greenlanders Say “We Don’t Want to Be Americans” as Trump’s Threats Rekindle Arctic Tensions
When former U.S. President Donald Trump once again raised the idea of asserting American control over Greenland, the response from the Arctic island was swift, united, and unequivocal. Greenlanders, through their political leaders, made one message clear to the world: they do not want to be Americans. The renewed rhetoric from Trump has not only revived an old controversy but also exposed deeper questions about sovereignty, identity, and the rights of small nations in an era of aggressive geopolitics. Greenland, the world’s largest island, may be sparsely populated, but its strategic importance has grown dramatically in recent years. Melting ice due to climate change has opened new shipping routes and access to vast reserves of rare-earth minerals, oil, and gas. These developments have turned the Arctic into a focal point of global power competition, drawing interest from the United States, China, and Russia alike. Yet for Greenlanders themselves, the conversation is not about global dominance — it is about dignity, autonomy, and the right to decide their own future. A United Political Front in Greenland One of the most striking aspects of the current moment is the rare unity displayed by Greenland’s political leadership. All major parties in the Inatsisartut, Greenland’s parliament, issued a joint statement rejecting any suggestion that Greenland could or should become part of the United States. Their words were firm and symbolic: “We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish. We want to be Greenlanders.” This statement was more than a reaction to Trump’s remarks; it was a declaration of identity. Greenland has spent decades gradually moving away from colonial dependence on Denmark. Since gaining home rule in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, the island has taken control of most domestic affairs, while Denmark still manages defense and foreign policy. Many Greenlanders view eventual independence as a long-term goal, but one that must come through democratic choice — not external pressure. Public opinion strongly supports this stance. Surveys consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Greenland’s population opposes becoming part of the United States. The idea of being “bought” or absorbed by another country is widely seen as outdated, disrespectful, and incompatible with modern principles of self-determination. Trump’s Renewed Interest and Strategic Arguments Donald Trump’s fascination with Greenland is not new. During his presidency, he openly floated the idea of purchasing the island, reportedly seeing it as a strategic asset that could strengthen U.S. military positioning in the Arctic and counter rival powers. His latest comments, which hinted that America might take Greenland “one way or another,” reignited fears about coercive diplomacy. From Washington’s perspective, Greenland’s location makes it invaluable. The U.S. already maintains a military presence at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key component of missile defense and space surveillance. Trump and his allies argue that greater U.S. control would enhance security, prevent Chinese investment, and limit Russian influence in the Arctic. However, Greenlandic leaders strongly dispute the notion that their island is vulnerable or incapable of managing foreign partnerships responsibly. They argue that security concerns should be addressed through cooperation with Denmark and NATO, not through threats or unilateral ambitions. To many in Greenland, Trump’s rhetoric feels less like a security strategy and more like a return to 19th-century power politics. Identity, Culture, and the Fear of Losing Control Beyond geopolitics, Greenlanders’ resistance is deeply rooted in cultural and social concerns. Greenland’s population, predominantly Inuit, has a distinct language, traditions, and worldview shaped by Arctic life. The island’s social model prioritizes community welfare, public healthcare, and local decision-making tailored to its harsh environment. Many fear that becoming part of the United States would fundamentally alter these systems. Questions arise about healthcare access, land rights, environmental protection, and the preservation of Indigenous culture. For a society that has already experienced the long-term impacts of colonial rule, the idea of exchanging one external authority for another is deeply unsettling. Local voices have repeatedly emphasized that Greenland is “not for sale.” This sentiment reflects a broader rejection of being treated as a commodity rather than a community. The frustration is not only with Trump personally but with the mindset that assumes powerful nations can redraw borders without the consent of the people who live there. Denmark, NATO, and International Concerns Denmark has firmly backed Greenland’s position, warning that any attempt to force a change in the island’s status would violate international law and strain alliances. Danish leaders have stressed that Greenland’s future can only be decided by Greenlanders themselves, in accordance with existing self-rule agreements. The controversy has also raised concerns within NATO. If a leading alliance member were to threaten the territorial integrity of another member’s realm, it could undermine trust and cooperation at a time when unity is already under pressure from global crises. Allies worry that such disputes weaken the moral authority of democratic nations that claim to uphold international norms. A Defining Moment for Greenland’s Future Ironically, Trump’s threats may have accelerated conversations within Greenland about full independence. While economic challenges remain — including reliance on Danish subsidies — the current situation has strengthened national consciousness and political solidarity. Many Greenlanders now see greater autonomy not just as an aspiration, but as a safeguard against external interference. This moment is a reminder that in the modern world, power should not override principle. Greenland’s leaders are not denying the island’s strategic importance; they are insisting that strategic value does not cancel human agency. Their message resonates far beyond the Arctic, echoing the struggles of small nations everywhere that find themselves caught between competing global powers. Conclusion: Sovereignty Is Not Negotiable As tensions simmer, one truth stands out: Greenlanders are determined to speak for themselves. They reject the idea of becoming Americans not out of hostility, but out of a profound commitment to self-identity and self-rule. In doing so, they challenge a world order that too often prioritizes strategy over sovereignty. Whether Greenland eventually becomes fully independent or continues its partnership with Denmark, its future will be shaped by the will of its people — not by threats, deals, or geopolitical ambition. And in asserting that right so clearly, Greenland has delivered a powerful message: in the 21st century, nations are not possessions, and people are not bargaining chips.
By Muhammad Hassan2 days ago in The Swamp
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.