Amnesty International has released a report condemning Facebook and Google. In a 60-page report, Amnesty International argued that the collection and accumulation of personal information by Facebook and Google threatens the human rights of people around the world. On the other hand, Facebook has also rebutted Amnesty International’s opinion, saying it “fundamentally disagrees.”
Amnesty International’s criticism in a report entitled “Large Companies To Monitor” is Facebook and Google’s advertising-based business model. According to Amnesty International’s research, Facebook boasts 2.45 billion monthly active users, equivalent to about 70 percent of SNS users, and WhatsApp, a messaging app under the Facebook umbrella, dominates 75% of the messaging app market, excluding China. In addition to 90% of searches made across the Internet, Google owns The World’s Largest Video Sharing Site YouTube, Chrome, apple’s iOS and smartphone market, and Android, a mobile OS that divides Apple’s iOS and smartphone market.
Against the backdrop of these multifaceted and dominant Internet-related services, Facebook and Google are “compounding” the advertising market on the Internet. It is extremely difficult to use the Internet without passing any personal information to both companies. Amnesty International noted that “the paradoxical situation is that in order to exercise human rights that people enjoy the convenience of the Internet, facebook and Google must allow their privacy rights to be violated.” “Internet users are forced to choose like Faust, the legendary person who sold their souls to the devil in exchange for knowledge and happiness, but we don’t sign up for these contracts,” he said. We asked Facebook and Google to change from their advertising-based business model. Amnesty International’s protests are also directed at governments in various countries.
Amnesty International noted the government’s inaction, saying that “although the government has a duty to protect its people from corporate human rights abuses, the protection of privacy has been left to self-regulatory by large Silicon Valley companies over the past two decades.” and it called on IT companies to implement regulatory measures and remedies for those who have been subjected to human rights violations.
On the other hand, Facebook and Google, who have been listed as spearballs, have voiced their objections. A Google spokesperson told the tech news site The Verge, “We understand very well that we must protect people’s personal information and the trust they place on us. We’ve made significant changes to our services over the past 18 months and have built tools that make it easier for people to control their personal information.” As part of its efforts to balance privacy protection and advertising business, Google advocates a “privacy sandbox that protects user information but doesn’t compromise the relevance of advertising.” Google announces development of a mechanism that “protects user information while not compromising the relevance of advertising” – GIGAZINE
A Facebook spokesperson said in a report by Amnesty International, “Fundamentally unagreeable. Our business model is just a way for organizations like Amnesty International advertising to contact supporters through advertising, raise money, and fulfill their organization’s goals.” Amnesty International also pointed out that it is enjoying the benefits of Facebook’s business model.