In the social economy, content is produced by users rather than by the owners of a website such as Facebook or Instagram. Most people welcome the ability to freely use these content-sharing platforms to keep in touch with their friends, share pictures, or even write content for others as on the Wikia websites. Given that the companies that own these content-sharing platforms make vast sums of money, are the user-producers being exploited by producing content without pay? Choose a specific example of a website where users upload content for others to enjoy, but are not paid to do so, and develop a normative argument. You can focus on the experience of users, the ethics of the situation, the economics, or the overall implications for society of unpaid content production.
Introduction
Researches on how investments in ICT and new media technologies, including social media platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, can boost economic development have been advancing over the last two decades (Awoleye 24). Social media vastly replaces the direct face-to-face interactions and socialization processes among people of all occupations. Therefore, it is most likely that a large number of people would access a video advert placed on social media networking site, for instance, Instagram or YouTube. However, this situation introduces a question concerning the possibility of the social media sites to foster economic development, especially where users are the generators of the content. Indeed, in the social economy, content is produced by users rather than by the owners of a website such as Facebook, YouTube, or Instagram. This paper examines whether the user-producers are being abused by coming up with sensible contents while not receiving any pay for their work.
The Case of Facebook
Most people welcome the ability to freely use content-sharing platforms to keep in touch with their friends, share pictures, or even write contents for others as it is done on Wiki websites. Companies that own content-sharing platforms make vast sums of money. An important scholarly question is whether the user-producers are being exploited by producing content without pay. What are the ethical issues of the situation, the economics, or the overall implications for society concerning unpaid content production? Since these concerns cannot be fully examined on a limited scope, this section focuses on the ethics of the situation of unpaid labor using the case of Facebook. A major social media concern that attracts ethical concerns entails the concept of free labor.
Awoleye (27) argues that all social media users are working akin to the fact that they continuously use their ideas and/or spend an incredible amount of time on various social media outlets. For example, in the case of Facebook, such users generate content that leads to financial gains on the side of the company. In this case, the debate concerning ethics stems from media convergence concepts, which offer a different perspective on the meaning of work. Hesmondhalgh asserts, “Work could range from sitting behind a desk in an office, to sitting at home on social media promoting the company” (268). A theoretical argument is that this situation may be regarded as a way of exploiting Facebook users through free labor.
Hesmondhalgh further argues that this case is unethical for organizations that have to make profits without commensurately paying their workers (268). The author provides a substantive argument on the concept of free labor, raising questions on the ethical aspects that surround the failure to pay content producers in social media platforms such as Facebook. He notes that consumption and production manifest a complicated relationship, which stems right from the meaning of free labor. The concept may imply a form of unpaid labor or uncontrollable job where monetary value can be allocated to it. Consequently, even though it is unethical to engage people in content production without paying them, it is intriguing to concisely define what needs to be paid, including the type of the acceptable form of free labor. If people cannot control the extent of their labor input into an organization such as Facebook, then the question on whether they should be paid or not lacks a direct and obvious response.
Facebook users who generate free content for the company acquire an opportunity to use a service, which arguably amounts to a kind of payment. Social media platforms such as Facebook enable people to chat with friends not only via computers but also through any Internet-enabled mobile devices, for instance, smartphones. Using Facebook to achieve the company’s interest increases professional education linkages, a situation that has the effect of increasing knowledge exchange among people working in different organizations. Such exchange fosters innovation and creativity. Besides, it provides reliable organizational benchmarks. Where the sharing of information is between customers and employees, social media platforms’ use to pursue companies’ objectives facilitates the learning of consumer needs, which form the basis for developing new product lines. In the context of these arguments, Hesmondhalgh’s arguments that free labor and exploitation should not be paired in the discussion of Facebook’s criticism concerning the free use of content generated to make profits becomes substantive (272). Does this finding imply that Facebook users and content producers are involved in what Graeber calls “bullshit” jobs?
In the current economy, Graeber argues that some people may be preoccupied with the creation of jobs, which they pointlessly keep on working. John Keynes made predictions that people in the technological world would work for 15 hours and still enjoy the incredibly increasing living standards. Graeber provides a contrary opinion that even if technological predictions of Keynes have been realized, people are now pointlessly involved in useless work. He attributes this phenomenon to the availability of free time among the productive population, a situation that he equates to a mortal danger (par.7). Applying this argument to the case of Facebook and the aforementioned ethics behind free labor, the emerging question is whether the company would pay users and content generators in case it lacked willing free workers who have lots of free time. A “yes” response to this question would imply that social media takes advantage of the readily available productive labor to generate content for sale to yield profits, yet it fails to pay the respective producers.
Conclusion
On such accounts and based on the expositions raised in the paper, it suffices to conclude that user-producers are exploited by producing content without pay. The paper declares this move by Facebook unethical.
Works Cited
Awoleye, Martin. “Economic Value of ICT Investment in Nigeria: Is it Commensurate?” International Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, vol. 1, no. 10, 2012, pp. 22-30.
Graeber, David. “On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs.” Strike Magazine, 2013, Web.
Hesmondhalgh, David. “User-generated Content, Free Labor and the Cultural Industries.” Ephemera, vol. 10, no. 3, 2010, pp. 267-284.