Facebook: Ad-Supported Social Media or Creepy Information Trawler?

To the 1.01 billion active users of Facebook, the website is a place to keep in touch with friends, share photos, and play games. To advertisers and marketers, however, Facebook is a massive management information system – an opportunity to collect information, preferences, and opinions from millions of users. How much of this happens with user consent, though?

Facebook has changed (read loosened) its privacy policies many times over the past years. In fact, the website no longer uses a privacy policy but instead prefers to refer to their user agreement as a data-use policy. The scandals don’t end there, however. Just over two years ago, Facebook’s implementation of the “Places” feature sparked controversy when the application’s default setting tracked the mobile location of users.

One of Facebook’s data centers, where all user information is stored

Although users are beginning to be much more conscious about privacy on Facebook, they cannot stop the company from recording and storing almost everything they have ever shared, including private messages. This, coupled with very recent proof of the company selling personal information to third parties, will have users thinking twice before posting anything on Facebook.

Picture Source: Facebook

RE: The Northern Gateway Pipeline – A Great Debate

This post is a response to Matthew Chan’s post on the proposed Enbridge pipeline, which can be found here.

The proposed pipeline would pump oil all the way from Alberta, through the interior of British Columbia, to Kitimat Bay. The chance of an oil spill occurring somewhere along this route is quite probable and the impact such a spill on the environment would be immense. But what is even worse is the risk of an oil spill along Kitimat Bay. The Douglas Channel is a very dangerous waterway filled with many little islands. In fact, just six years ago, the BC Ferry’s Queen of the North vessel capsized after a collision that occurred exactly where Enbridge’s tankers would travel if the pipeline were to be built. Enbridge is aware of this risk and is actively trying to hide it.

The “Great Debate”, as Matthew calls it, is nothing short of that name. The clash of business and politics is heating up and conflicts have become quite nasty. This summer, an Enbridge official made several sexist and anti-BC remarks in a (now publicized) e-mail (full article here).

For Enbridge, it all comes down to the problem of business ethics. Perhaps they should reevaluate their plans and consider the views of the strongly opposing stakeholders.

Picture Source: Davidsuzuki.org

“Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible.”

— Phil Angell, Monsanto’s Director of Corporate Communications

This quote was published in the October 25, 1998 issue of the New York Times. As horrifying as these words may seem, they are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Monsanto is an American multinational corporation in the field of agricultural bio-engineering (click here for more information). With an $11.822 billion revenue in 2011, Monsanto has a strong grasp on the agriculture worldwide.

A Google search for “Monsanto” provides the auto-complete suggestion “Monsanto evil”. How did Monsanto develop such a reputation? There are a few major reasons:

1) Monsanto does not test their genetically modified (GM) food for long term health effects (click here for more information).
2) Not only does Monsanto not guarantee the safety of their product (some of which have proven to be harmful) – they openly and irresponsibly admit they care only about maximizing profits.

3) Monsanto uses their patents to bully smaller businesses. GM seeds are often scattered by Monsanto’s transportation trucks and contaminate the crops of smaller farms. Monsanto then takes legal action against said farms (click here for more information).

Monsanto claims that their technology prevents rising crop prices and starvation. They market themselves as a need, when they are possibly a threat! Should we be gambling with the long-term effects of GMOs? Should the government implement anti-GMO policies?

Picture Sources: Google | Eco Watch | Site Maker