predatory marketers intercept, much like the opposing team intercepts a football, artists creative content on the internet and use the content for marketing profits. Facebook does this too, it acts like it’s the one who provides original content and doesn’t pay the artist who posts the original content. That is one example of where facebook should pay its users. The original content stream from facebook users is what draws people to use facebook in the first place. Its an entertainment website. And you only get a piece of the pie, realistically, from posting your creative original content on facebook if you have the money to advertise it or promote it on facebook. Otherwise your content will not reach nearly as many individual users as it should. Facebooks algorithms make sure of that, and it makes sure that Facebook profits overwhelmingly from the original content of its users. Its like signing with a major record label, a bad or steep contract, playing at a rigged casino but probably worse. the individual consent of its users, actual consent, especially in facebooks case, is totally disregarded. facebook has taken its sweeping and vague definition of consent one step further. facebook recently conducted a massive psychological experiment on its users, and claimed its users consented, because of the facebook disclaimer the user accepts when making a facebook profile. how does facebook take marketing consent a step further? it not only claims it has its users consent to allow Facebook to use their private information for marketing profits, but now its claiming it has its users medical consent, to conduct psychological experiments
Posted on: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 08:52:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015