Title of Article 1: “Privacy and Social Media”
Style of Article 1: Persuasive
Example 1: “From every angle, social media is anathema to privacy”; “All of this sharing may help create communities, but it also destroys privacy” (Claypoole p. 1)
Title of Article 2: “Known or Knowing Publics? Social Media Data Mining and the Question of Public Agency”
Style of Article 2: Persuasive
Example 2: “We proceed to elaborate on some of the main criticisms that have been leveled at social media data mining’s production of known publics, in order then to consider the conditions under which more knowing publics might emerge” (Kennedy and Moss 2).
Response
The current problem with the security of users’ personal data on social media has reached troubling rates. In their articles, Claypool (1), as well as Kennedy and Moss (1), strive to address the idea of government regulations as the possible solutions. While both studies have a point, a compromise between the proposed solutions seems to be the most reasonable step. Therefore, one may claim with a significant amount of certainty that social media has a tangible impact on human lives and that the government may need to introduce tighter regulations for limiting the extent to which the personal data of users is exposed to the third party.
Evaluation
Overall, the argument concerning the need to promote greater government regulations in the social media environment seems legitimate when considering the extent of risk. However, due to the possible threats that the specified regulations may have on the freedom of speech, a compromise involving the education of users may be seen as the best solution.
Thesis Statement
Social media has been affecting the level of people’s security due to the threat of personal data reveal, which means that introducing governmental regulations curbing the extent of personal information exposure in modern media.
Patterns of Organization
The article by Claypool is organized in a rather basic way, with each paragraph addressing a specific privacy-related argument concerning the management of social networks. The specified structure allows locating the key points against social media better, yet it lacks convincingness. Steven and Moss, in turn, also follow a specific structure, yet their argument seems to be more coherent due to the way in which it is organized. Split into the sections labeled as “Introduction,” “Known Public,” “Knowing Public,” and “Conclusion,” the paper delivers its main message unambiguously and unapologetically.
Facts
Although Claypool does not mention the importance of the government’s influence on social media, it is heavily implied. By stating that the government’s efforts leave much to be desired, the author argues that the described impact has to be reinforced. Steven and Moss, in turn, also incorporate critical arguments into their paper to support their claims quite effectively by referring to prior studies on the topic under discussion.
Opinions
According to Claypool’ to reduce the extent of the threat to personal data, tools for governmental regulations have to be incorporated into the existing policies. The described point of view aligns with the one of Steven and Moss, who believe that the process of public data mining has been launched and is presently taking place. However, unlike Claypool, Steven and Moss believe that the problem can be addressed by communicating the demands of the general audiences and reducing the influence of the “constraining structures” (Steven and Moss 10). Thus, the authors emphasize the necessity for the government to regulate the specified aspect of public communication through a careful change in the existing regulations.
Summary
The article by Claypool conveys the idea of the necessity to introduce rigid governmental influence on social media. The authors concede that social media represents a threat and that its influence has to be restricted. Steven and Moss, in turn, also conclude that social media has a negative impact on the extent of security and the safety of personal data. However, Steven and Moss provide a more sensible solution instead, focusing on the idea of careful management of social media to maintain the freedom of speech and expression, simultaneously addressing the issue of public safety.
Response to the Question
The articles under analysis outline the problem of social media as the host of an array of threats to the personal data security of ordinary users. Both authors make it clear that the level of exposure of personal information remains potentially high, which suggests that tighter governmental regulations would be beneficial for the well-being of average users. However, Steven and Moss also mention the problems caused by overly zealous supervision of state officials over modern media, pointing to the threat of reducing the extent of creative freedom and the right to free speech within social media (9). Therefore, it is important to balance between the promotion of information sharing with the help of social media as an innovative data management tool and the enhancement of personal security by preventing cybercriminals from stealing personal information from users.
Works Cited
Claypoole, Theodore F. “Privacy and Social Media.” Business Law Today, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, p. 1.
Kennedy, Helen, and Giles Moss. “Known or Knowing Publics? Social Media Data Mining and the Question of Public Agency.” Big Data & Society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1-11.
Annotated Bibliography
Claypoole, Theodore F. “Privacy and Social Media.” Business Law Today, vol. 1, no. 1, 2014, p. 1.
The author addresses the business aspects of social media sites, pointing out that they are expected to serve as the tools for attracting audiences and making money first, hence the need to lure viewers into visiting these sites. Introducing the concept of “databite” as the measure of personal information disclosed to social media sites, Claypoole argues that the propensity toward revealing personal information on social networks has significantly negative consequences for users’ privacy and safety. The main strength of the article comes from the research that the author makes in the attempt at identifying the measures that can counteract the problem in question.
Specifically, the appeal to the Federal Trade Commission seems a legitimate step. However, the article suffers from the lack of scientific evidence used to substantiate Claypoole’s statements. Therefore, the veracity and trustworthiness of the article can be deemed as moderately high. The paper can be used for the general assessment of the extent of risks through which users put themselves when providing personal data to social media sites.
Kennedy, Helen, and Giles Moss. “Known or Knowing Publics? Social Media Data Mining and the Question of Public Agency.” Big Data & Society, vol. 1, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1-11.
Researching the problem of social media and its impact on users’ privacy and security, Kennedy and Moss address several important issues linked to how social media can be regulate to reduce the threat of personal data exposure. In their study, Kennedy and Moss outline the differences between the known and knowing public, emphasizing the need to introduce greater supervision for the tools and techniques used by social networks as the method of data mining. The researchers claim that the current forms of data mining could use significant changes to become more democratic and less discrete so that people using social networks could be aware of the data tracking methods used for collecting their personal information.
The focus on the aspect of awareness as one of the factors affecting the security of users is the main advantage of the article. The paper suffers from the lack of a well-explained research method and evidence from users. The article by Kennedy and Moss can be used to address the lack of concern for public safety shown by owners of social media sites and networks and suggest methods of governance that could potentially improve the situation.