Social Media is in a complicated relationship with Privacy

Social Media. Privacy. The juxtaposition of these two terms rings bells. Social media allows users to connect and share media with others. Privacy, on the other hand, restricts what media is shared and with whom. As the title of the Troni's article suggests, the two terms themselves are contradictory. Due to the conflicting natures of social media and privacy, does social media privacy even exist? In a world where we share more information with more people both intentionally and unintentionally, has privacy become a luxury of the past?

Social media privacy often refers to the content visibility controls that social media platforms provide. However, any form of media that we post on these social media websites is no longer truly private. We don't know what the individuals we choose to share this media with will do with our content. For example, there are many blogs on Tumblr dedicated to sharing humorous Facebook posts, such as the one on the right. Even if the person who posted this status limited its visibility to his or her approved Facebook friends, it only takes one Facebook friend who finds it humorous and a screenshot to increase the audience of the intimate thought by 900.

Troni brings up an interesting argument in her article: companies should provide consumers methods of "erasing" the mistakes they have made in sharing content or information. While this idea is ideal in theory, it is unattainable in practice. The replicable and scalable nature of anything uploaded to Internet simply does not allow for true 'erasing'. Once content is uploaded to the Internet, it is free for consumption by anyone. Anyone who views the content has the ability to replicate it in some way. Text can be copied. Images can be saved. Videos can be screen-recorded. Once content is in the hands of another, it lives on despite its original creator's efforts to "erase" it. Troni also states that companies should rectify any mistakes that they make with consumer data. However, this notion, too, is ideal in theory and unattainable in practice. Just as it is difficult for companies to ensure users the ability to erase their mistakes, it is difficult for companies to 'erase' their own mistakes. For example, many companies nowadays store their consumer's private data - such as credit card numbers - in online databases. Any security breaches in these online databases are "mistakes" on the company's part. On many occasions, hackers have targeted Sony's databases and stolen credit card information from its consumers.  Sony has NO way to erase this mistake. Even if Sony improves the security of its databases, Sony can NOT insure that the hackers will not post or share the stolen information. Nowadays, privacy concerns not only which individuals can see certain content but also what these individuals choose to do with this content.

Troni makes a suggestion that I feel is part of an approach to maintaining quasi-privacy online: knowing that "stuff happens." Companies can't expect users to never make mistakes and vice versa. In knowing that "stuff happens," we understand that nothing we post is truly private, keeping what we really feel needs to be private private. However, this understanding is under the assumption that true privacy can not co-exist with social media. Under this assumption, should efforts to obtain privacy be abandoned altogether?