-optimized.jpg){kind=avatar}
Social media and video streaming companies harvest ‘an enormous amount of’ personal data and monetise it to the tune of billions of dollars a year, according to a regulator’s report in the United States.
The Federal Trade Commission report was based on replies from several giant tech platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, Facebook and Twitch. FTC Chair Lina Khan said: “While lucrative for the companies, these surveillance practices can endanger people’s privacy, threaten their freedoms, and expose them to a host of harms, from identify theft to stalking. Several firms’ failure to adequately protect kids and teens online is especially troubling. The Report’s findings are timely, particularly as state and federal policymakers consider legislation to protect people from abusive data practices.”
Khan noted that ‘the behavioural ad-based business model seems to be a key driver of the platforms’ data practices’. The report found that the business models of many of the companies incentivised mass collection of user data to monetise, especially through targeted advertising, which accounts for most of their revenue. It further noted that those incentives were in tension with user privacy, and therefore posed risks to users’ privacy.
The report called for US federal privacy legislation to limit surveillance, address baseline protections, and grant consumers data rights. For the report visit the FTC website.
Comment
Graeme Stewart, head of public sector at Check Point Software, said that he commended the efforts of social media companies to restrict access to inappropriate content for minors and to offer privacy protection, but the FTC report suggests these measures aren’t effective, particularly for children. “I believe the cat is already out of the bag, and I don’t see how it can be put back in. For the record, I’ve worked in the tech industry for 30 years, and the only social media account I reluctantly maintain is LinkedIn, with every possible privacy setting maxed out. I certainly won’t be allowing my young daughter on these platforms for many years.”
On the report more generally he said: “None of this is surprising. Anyone with even a basic understanding of social media and the technology behind it knows that these services aren’t truly free — you pay with your privacy. Your personal details have value, both individually and as part of aggregated data, which allows social media companies to sell highly targeted advertising to businesses, political parties, and charities. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing—advertising is what funds TV and radio services around the world, and most people accept ad breaks during their favourite shows.
“The issue arises in two key ways: first, when you haven’t explicitly consented to share your data with your chosen platform. Privacy settings are often buried deep within the interface and written in language that’s far from clear. Frankly, most people don’t bother to look for these settings—they just click “OK” and move on, unaware or unconcerned about the implications of sharing their data. As a result, your data may be shared with unknown third parties and used, at best, for advertising, but potentially for more nefarious purposes. It’s not uncommon to hear reports of inappropriate content being shown to users without any clear reason as to why.
“The second major issue involves minors. Children and teens are eager to stay connected, driven by a fear of missing out (FOMO) on the latest trends and buzz. Despite the protests from social media companies, this continues to happen. Various governments around the world are stepping in to address this. For example, the Australian government has committed to imposing an age limit for social media before the next election, with the Prime Minister suggesting an age range between 14 and 16. This is not unique, yet social media companies push back, essentially arguing that they’re just providing a platform and shouldn’t be held accountable for inappropriate content posted on it. They also lobby governments, framing their arguments around free speech.”
