“Deactivation is the opposite of action”: is leaving Facebook the best choice?

And the big topic of last week could not have been anything else: the case, then referred to as scandal, involving the consultancy Cambridge Analytica, which manipulated the information of more than 50 million Facebook users. More than ever, and in even greater numbers, we have become aware of the logic of "surveillance capitalism" practiced by Facebook, a company that should not treat us as users, but rather as collaborators, since we produce data that will ultimately be commodified for purposes such as the 2016 campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump, for which the consultancy Cambridge Analytica worked.

As described, the company obtained the information as early as 2014 and used it to build an application designed to predict voters' decisions and, in doing so, exert influence over them. Faced with this revelation, which caused a loss of nearly $50 billion in Facebook's market value, it was the first time Mark Zuckerberg decided to speak out on his personal profiles, stating that the company would be investigating Cambridge Analytica, as well as working on new security measures to prevent companies like this from using user data.

Even so, this sparked a movement that gained traction under the hashtag #deleteFacebook, with support from people like Elon Musk, who deleted the Tesla and SpaceX profiles from the social network. But is simply abandoning the social network the best option? That is what Siva Vaidhyanathan questioned in an opinion piece for the New York Times. But beyond considering the Cambridge scandal, the author, who specializes in the history of culture and media, brought up the point that many people feel hindered by the social network, especially accusing it of preventing them from focusing on their projects and work—which is fine, but Siva says that even if you decide to delete your profile, it is better not to believe that it will actually make a difference to Facebook or the world.

Even if tens of thousands of Americans left Facebook tomorrow, the company would barely feel it. Facebook has more than 2.1 billion users around the world. Its growth was driven in the United States, but the service is gaining millions of users outside of North America every week. Like many global companies, Facebook focuses on markets such as India, Egypt, Indonesia, the Philippines, Brazil, and Mexico. At the current rate of growth, the network could reach the three-billion-user milestone by 2020.

It is in these countries that Siva argues people are taking advantage, for example, of connecting with others when there are few other local services that provide the same function. "In this developing world, Facebook is also the only source of information that matters. This should horrify us. But it is not a problem that will be solved by indignant Americans leaving the network," the author writes.

In Brazil, the use of social networks to find news reached the milestone of 66% of online readers in 2017, with Facebook being the leader with 57% of those interviewed in the survey conducted by G1 and WhatsApp also arrives to rival these statistics—however, this messaging platform is also owned by Facebook. And besides that, as Siva points out, it is not as if other social media platforms are exempt from other scandals, such as hate speech on YouTube or the Russian presence on Twitter. "All the major telecommunications firms, as well as Google and Twitter, rely on surveillance systems similar to those Facebook uses to generate targeted ads. Facebook is bigger and better at all of this compared to the others, but these problems are not unique," argues Siva.

For this reason, the author believes that the hope for change lies much more in the power of citizens than in changes to the platforms. "We must demand that legislators and regulators become firmer. They must go after Facebook on issues of libel," he writes. Siva also argues that the government, or more specifically the Department of Justice, should consider breaking up WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger from Facebook, just as it did with AT&T in 1982. "This breakup unleashed creativity, improved telephone services, and lowered prices. And it also limited AT&T's political power," he explains.

In Europe, there are already efforts to protect the data of its users through the General Data Protection Regulation project, which will be implemented in May of this year and aims to ensure that users are aware of and consenting to the access of their data when using a given product.

However, even these regulatory projects have their limitations. Siva writes that as long as Facebook remains as large and wealthy as it currently is, its algorithm will determine and distort much of what we read and watch. "Our long-term agenda must be to strengthen institutions that foster democratic liberation and the rational pursuit of knowledge. These include scientific organizations, universities, libraries, museums, newspapers, and civil organizations. All of them have been weakened in recent years as our resources and attention have shifted to the addictive devices in our hands."

Siva believes that change in this landscape will come from accountability and resistance, not simply by leaving Facebook: “If we act as disconnected and indignant agents, we surrender our only power: the power to think and act collectively. We can even use Facebook to create campaigns to win over Facebook. It is, after all, a powerful tool for motivation, even if it is a terrible way to deliberate.”

Ultimately, Siva concludes that if leaving Facebook makes you calmer and more productive, then go ahead. On the other hand, the author points out that this may just be delaying and shifting the problem onto those with fewer opportunities to protect their privacy and dignity—those most vulnerable to democracy. “If the people who care most about privacy, trust, and civil discourse evacuate Facebook in disdain, the entire platform becomes less informed and diverse. Deactivation is the opposite of action.”