Social Media: Privacy Invasion

In 1974, the early internet, the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, was produced by Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn. However, the first personal computers were produced and advanced using a semiconductor chip (Gregersen). The social effects of these technological advances allowed more people to buy personal computers because young adults and children commonly use them for video games and other leisure activities rather than using them for educational purposes (London 728-2012). According to this study, there is no clear theoretical prediction on why some young adults and children are socially affected and have considered their self-centered importance over developing healthy relationships with their family, friends, and even acquaintances. Unfortunately, some people acquire underlying clinical conditions, from depression and anxiety to Post Traumatic Stress or Bipolar Disorder, psychological issues that trigger complex difficulties, more so on social media (Lyubomirsky 191-193). Today, in using the internet, people tend to cling onto gadgets and distract themselves from the true nature of the social environment. Therefore, people find communication as a comfort related to the phenomenon of privacy (Csikszentmihalyi 143-147). One employment expert, Linda B. Hollinshead, proclaims that despite the increasing personal leaks, data collection about users was necessary regardless of personal usage. Hetan Shah, chief executive director and professor, promotes the protection of privacy concerns as an honorable pledge to keep data-ownership protected. Although certain experts believe privacy invasions via the internet should be tolerated, privacy should not be invaded using threats from government policy or other unethical practices by entities that should not be violating Americans’ constitutional rights.

To begin, the threats of government issued policy should not be tolerated by enforcing stricter regard for access to personal data. Internet usage such as social media has extended the importance of limiting threats to the First Amendment rights (Whitehead 195). In opposition, some consider that social media is categorized as commercial speech, so long lasting threats and conflicts create a variation in viewpoints. An unknown author in CityBusiness Guest Perspective claims that the courts come into realization that “the Cyber Age is a revolution of historic proportions, we cannot appreciate yet its full dimensions and vast potential to alter how we think, express ourselves, and define who we want to be” (“Op-Ed: U.S Supreme Court on First Amendment Rights and Social Media.”). Social media provides access to its full potential of benefits regardless of past criminal activities, such as sex offenders who prey on children and naive teens. For example, the minimum age requirement to use the internet is at least thirteen years old, and they tend to not know much about internet safety. Therefore, adolescents need to be educated on how to be safe by using valid sites when accessing social media. However, a threat is imposed, according to lawyers, that they get to adjudicate the use of social media against the First Amendment and therefore they believe they can utilize their practice and understanding of the law. Due to lawyers' excuse to use social media to invade privacy, they put peer pressure onto the client testimonials of their claimed fight to the court of law (Hade). The First Amendment itself applies under free speech, but does not limit the factor of that restrained order to give authorization where lawyers and the government define an individual. Even though First Amendment rights are justified, criminal activities rise among the misconduct of other individuals, such as libel through the freedom of the press (Michelle Tilton). Conversely, Jeffrey Rosen, biographer, literary, art and film critic, improperly implies that “[a permitted request of a repost of one’s original deleted post] creates a serious threat to First Amendment issues of free speech and freedom of the press that creates a chilling effect on free speech and expression” (qtd. in Myers 59). Due to this liability in freedom of publishing content, this could potentially require a group to ask permission to use someone’s content to create a news story or any other narrative storylines. Realistically, this does not apply where thoughts of possibly damaging the world wide web are an over-exaggerated excuse to create more complications through the internet rather than just a simple removal like reporting on social media platforms for inappropriate behavior. Threats of government issued policy should not be tolerated by enforcing stricter regard for access to personal data.

Next, stolen influencer or fan contributed ideas are invasions of privacy according to the law and belong to the respectful owner. The freedom of open-platforms makes it easier to escape the cost of receiving entertainment, but in the world of mass-surveillance tools, this increases the risk of invasions of privacy as well (Roose). On the contrary, some feel that when influencers or entertainers freely express themselves they leave vulnerable information on the media where it does not cause a problematic framework to one’s perspective of an individual who is basically concealed otherwise (Hetan). Jasmine E. McNealy, a scholar and a professor, considers reflecting on the notion that “[the individuals'] jurisprudence seems to favor disclosure of personal information when it has a level of newsworthiness” (qtd. in Myers 58). This quotation strongly refers back to the press where they can gain easy access to diminish that individuals’ representation when reporting news or the courts just spread gossip and crucify them for accidentally implying unintentional negative energy, alienating fans. This provides a contradictory where improbably causes lead one individual at fault for posting freely; however, this is an unsuitable case that’s left unresolved. Margaret Rundle, a senior research specialist, divulges the serious truths in the desirable connection that “some of the digital media's ethical fault lines that [influencers] have scrutinized are the nature of personal identities that are being formed online; the fate of personal privacy in an environment where diverse types of information can be gleaned and disseminated.” To further explain, fans create assumptions based on the influencer’s look in the media, so they are unaware of the influencer’s or entertainer’s background or personal life. In 2007, a popular teenage YouTuber who captured a wide audience known as Lonelygirl15 was revealed to be Jessica Rose, a twenty-something actress, and this strangely confused fans that her first name was Bree (Rundle). The influencer disguised herself and later once revealed her fake identity, which then led fans to be confused and make claims that it was her real name. Tension is created among people’s social profiles, creating a war zone. The directive and the legal realm of data protection contends that “such data must be processed fairly for specific purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law” (qtd. in Birnhack). This quotation reflects on how to carefully pay close attention to privacy rules on social media platforms before taking any kind of action to cause arguments about differences. For instance, famous Hollywood actress Anne Hathaway defended herself on social media to fans because the posted meme photo of her in Alice Through the Looking Glass with the caption “In a world of Kardashians… be a Helena Bonham Carter” on Instagram and she felt attacked. This is a comprehensive scenario where her public attack on social media puts unintentional tension onto her but is not categorized in her realm of social media use (Abramovitch). Some celebrities do not even own a social media account because they do not want to deal with problems with privacy and unintentional tension thrown at them. The inappropriate behavior taken by many individuals causes some to suddenly stop using a specific social media platform (Huffman). Interchanging ideas with that particular individual is stolen right against those fighting for their privacy.

Finally, the internet allows the presenting of irrelevant and fake news. Inevitable trends offer amounts of unintentional damage to one’s reputation. According to the opposition, some confidently trust that the media represents individuals (Roose). Laura A. Heymann, a professor, publisher, and practicing attorney, strongly asserts that “reputation is fundamentally a social concept; it does not exist until a community collectively forms a judgement about an individual or firm that has the potential to guide the community’s future interactions” (1341). Many individuals such as influencers, fans, and even the government need to avoid unlawful assumptions of an individual when representing them through social media and where their framework around that damaged structure heavily relies on misrepresentation. Another expert, Stepheh M. Walt, a professor and a blogger, clarifies that “self-interested [unprofessional, foolish individuals] who are deeply committed to a particular agenda can distort the marketplace of ideas.” One then receives abrupt critical acts of betrayal and one can become incapable of dealing with that reality. Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis strongly propound that “certain personal information could not be disseminated without prior approval of the subject” (qtd. in Myers 58). Regardless of an individuals' image, people need to consider consent. For instance, Demi Lovato, an extremely well-known pop star who has a love-hate relationship with social media, faced “swift backlash” when she tried to explain herself when her last tweet was on Twitter was “that 21 Savage memes were her ‘favorite part of the Super Bowl.”’ Since the uprising of the tension, she has withdrawn from fans when trying to explain herself and using social media freely, but it then caused her to delete her Twitter account, explaining why she does not tweet anymore (Wallace). This exemplifies how fans criticize celebrities, influencers, and entertainers when they react over a tweet and other posts where celebrities receive needlessly distressing, cruel messages on social media. Inevitable trends can do unintentional damage to one’s reputation. Any form of threatening communication on social media is considered a felony where it’s classified and taken in action. In other words, a threat is considered a felony beyond the control of the victim (Whitehead 196-200). Due to their credibility in 1890, way before the internet, this quotation is one of their revolutionary ideas on privacy that takes an crucial act on behavior and the rights to privacy. Therefore, the threats of the press, lawyers, and even government control should be accounted to the rightful owner’s responsibility to ensure safety. An issue concurs where celebrities, influencers, entertainers, and fans face brutal concerns to their account; however, misrepresentation and hatred should not be an inevitable cause and effect.

Ultimately, due to the government’s code of conduct for the internet, individuals generally lose freedoms concerning their privacy in the digital world. Publicity and other viewers should not be limited by the government’s authority where it will later affect individuals, specifically influencers or fans. Moreover, the government’s laws and policy invading individuals’ space on the internet should be based on the individual’s choice to give them information for professional practices. People make false assumptions which hurt one’s reputation and take actions that cause trouble and conflict. The key is to ask online personalities, influencers, and content creators for permission, and if audiences do not understand, influencers or fans do not need to jump to conclusions that lead to further trouble. Thus, social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat are not supposed to incoherently vindicate and become an excuse to bully other individuals; notwithstanding, the freedom of manifesting communication with the public.

Works Cited

Abramovitch, Seth. “Yes, I Did Say That! A Look at Who’s saying What in Entertainment.” Hollywood Reporter, vol. 422, no. 18, 10 June 2016, p. 28. Gale General OneFile, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/apps/doc/A454785839/ITOF?u=sdccd_grossmont&sid=ITOF&xid=c03ea16b. Accessed 28 Apr. 2020.

Birnhack, D Michael. “Reverse Engineering Informational Privacy Law.” Yale Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 15, no. 1, 2012, p. 57+. Gale General OneFile, https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/apps/doc/A341367655/ITOF?u=sdccd_grossmont&sid=ITOF&xid=9f91ebf0. Accessed 28 Apr. 2020.

CityBusiness Guest Perspective.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. “If We Are So Rich, Why Aren’t We Happy?” Parfitt and Skorczeski, pp. 140-154.

Gregersen, Erik. “History of Technology Timeline.” ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA. https://www.britannica.com/story/history-of-technology-timeline. Accessed on 18 April 2020.

Hade, A. Kellen. “Not All Lawyers Are Antisocial: Social Media Regulation and the First Amendment.” Journal of the Professional Lawyer, Annual 2011, p.133. Cengage Learning, Inc. https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/apps/doc/A277675338/AONE?u=sdccd_grossmont&sid=AONE&xid=56a4adcd. Accessed on 29 April 2020.

Heymann, A Laura. “The Law of Reputation and the Interest of the Audience.” Boston College Law Review, Vol. 52 Issue 4, pp.1341-1439. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=2e8955ff-1892-4396-a130-2c49ba6dcabc%40sessionmgr4008. 1 September 2011. Accessed on 28 April 2020.

Hollinshead, Linda B. “Social Media and Protection Laws.” Employment Relations Today (Wiley), Vol. 40 No 3, pp.73-82. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=7dc3869e-bb9c-471d-97ac-0026a7c1a688%40pdc-v-sessmgr06. 1 September 2013. Accessed on 27 April 2020.

Huffman, J Brandon. “Developments in Social Media: First Amendment, Privacy, and Misappropriation.” Business Lawyer, Vol. 71, Issue 1. Gale Academic OneFile. https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/apps/doc/A442454310/AONE?u=sdccd_grossmont&sid=AONE&xid=dbf52e53. Winter 2015. Accessed 29 Apr. 2020.

London, A. Rebecca and Fairlie, W Robert. “The Effects of Home Computers on Educational Outcomes: Evidence From a Field Experiment with Community College Students.” Economic Journal. Vol. 122, Verison 561, p.727. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=ea5f4e9a-cc8c-49f3-b6ec-1056076541a0%40sessionmgr4008. 1 June 2012. Accessed on 24 April 2020.

Lyubomirsky, Sonja. “How Happy Are You and Why?” Parfitt and Skorczeski, pp. 179-196.

Myers, Cayce. “Digital Immortality vs. ‘The Right to be Forgotten’: A Comparison of U.S. and E.U. Laws Concerning Social Media Privacy.” Romanian Journal of Communication & Public Relations. ProQuest LLC. pp. 47-60. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=c2a27cee-1a52-4816-8afb-71c811cd4ef1%40sessionmgr10. 1 December 2014. Accessed on 27 April 2020.

“Op-Ed: U.S Supreme Court on First Amendment Rights and Social Media.” New Orleans CityBusiness. Cengage Learning, Inc. https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/ps/i.do?&id=GALE|A499836044&v=2.1&u=sdccd_grossmont&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w. 31 July 2017. Accessed on 28 April 2020.

Roose, Kevin. “A Cleaner Internet -- If You Can Pay.” The New York Time Magazine. Gale Academic OneFile. https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/ps/retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=1&docId=GALE%7CA605956539&docType=Article&sort=RELEVANCE&contentSegment=ZONE-MOD1&prodId=AONE&contentSet=GALE%7CA605956539&searchId=R1&userGroupName=sdccd_grossmont&inPS=true&ps=1&cp=1. 17 November 2019. Accessed on 27 April 2020.

Rundle, Margaret and Pettingill, Lindsay and Francis, M John and Flores, Andrea and Davis, Katie and James, Carrie. “Young People, Ethics, and the New Digital Media.” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice. Vol. 2, Issue 2. https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/ps/i.do?p=OVIC&u=sdccd_grossmont&id=GALE%7CA267134532&v=2.1&it=r. July 2010. Accessed on 28 April 2020.

Shah, Hetan. “Use Our Personal Data for the Common Good.” Nature, Vol. 556, Issue 7699. Gale General OneFile. https://go-gale-com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/ps/i.do?&id=GALE|A533447268&v=2.1&u=sdccd_grossmont&it=r&p=ITOF&sw=w. 5 April 2018.

Skorczewski, Dawn and Parfitt, Matthew. editors. Pursuing Happiness: A Bedford Spotlight Reader. First Edition. Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2017.

Tilton, Michelle. “Writers Beware: Media Liability Exposures for Attorneys and Law Firms.”

Wallace, Rachel and Sargent, Meagen and Pajer, Nicole and Longerettta, Emily and McCarley, Nikaline and Hernandez, Marjorie and Heger, Jen. “Demi’s Social Climb. (Demi Lovato’s Love-Hate Relationship with Social Media)(Hot Hollywood).” US Weekly, Issue. 8, Vol. 43, p.40. Cengage Learning, Inc. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=407186a5-24ca-496a-bbfa-30bdc4acfc3e%40pdc-v-sessmgr02. 25 February 2019. Accessed on 29 April 2020.

Walt, Stepheh M. “Where Do Bad Ideas Come From and Why Don’t They Go Away?” Foreign Policy, Issue. 184. Gale General Onefile. https://link-gale-com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/apps/doc/A246534035/ITOF?u=sdccd_grossmont&sid=ITOF&xid=a0e27d63. Jan.-Feb. 2011. Accessed on 27 April 2020.

Whitehead, A. Melissa. “MySpace, WhoseSpace? The Impact of Semi-Private Social Media on Threats and First Amendment.” New England Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement. Vol. 39, pp.193-214. Cengage Learning, Inc. http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.grossmont.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=6e5a6bf5-3f7b-4318-97c3-b11787a6f7aa%40pdc-v-sessmgr04. Winter 2013. Accessed on 27 April 2020.