Table of contentsIntroductionWhat is the film about?AnalysisEffectivenessHow could the film have been improved?ConclusionIntroductionWith a user base of almost a third of the world's population, Facebook is the largest social networking platform on the Internet. Guided by its corporate manifesto to build a more connected and open world, Facebook connects individuals across the digital space via their online profiles; However, how open is Facebook itself? Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayThe Facebookistan documentary attempts to answer this question through the deconstruction of the company's corporate mission, policies of information privacy and content moderation policies. Also examined are Facebook's nebulous transparency policies and the growing tension between Facebook and government institutions, as well as activists and their users over their activities. What is the film about? Facebookistan begins by introducing the viewer to the ambiguous – and often contradictory – nature of Facebook's activities; in particular, with regard to its privacy policies and content moderation practices. This section describes the struggle of Peter Knudsen, an author deprived of his rights and subject to Facebook's content moderation practices. The removal of Knudsen's work – which features artistic depictions of nudity – when pornographic content is arguably allowed on the platform demonstrates inconsistencies in Facebook's content policies. Digital activist Rebecca Mackinnon notes that Facebook's platform rules are vague and their application is often arbitrary. The viewer is then introduced to Max Schrems, a doctoral student in privacy law who is researching Facebook's information privacy practices. Schrems demonstrates the extent of user information retained by the company – which includes data that was not knowingly shared or previously deleted. He then explains the difficulty of contacting Facebook about these policies; Their lack of transparency in this matter constitutes a blatant violation of European privacy laws. The documentary then pivots to an examination of the consequences of Facebook's real-name policy in relation to censorship of cultural groups and expression of identity in digital space. Sister Roma, a Drag Queen community leader, reveals the conflict her community had with Facebook over these policies. Despite being strongly associated with its Drag personas as a means of cultural expression, Facebook requires community members – like all users – to use their real names on their platform. She then explains Facebook's dishonesty in responding to users' concerns, only to force them once again to use their real names. Mackinnon and other activists argue that Facebook's name policy endangers the lives of individuals in repressive regimes: attaching their real names to unsavory names. political views or cultural identities that invite persecution or violence. In response, individuals on the platform self-censor. The film concludes this chapter by demonstrating its lack of transparency regarding censorship activities. Journalists wanting to contact Facebook about this are blocked at every step by internal Facebook bureaucracy.the company. Facebook then turns to Facebook's content moderation practices; notably, the company's arbitrary interpretation of its own content rules based on political, cultural or monetary interests. Facebook's positive recruiting messages are directly juxtaposed with the dismal working conditions of its moderators, many of whom are frequently exposed to violent images. Facebook gives its moderators minimal time to evaluate content and full discretion to do so as they see fit, according to their rules. Political activists from repressive regimes explain how Facebook frequently censors its activities in favor of ruling parties. Turkish activist Müge Yamanyilmaz points out that if individuals want to continue to have a voice on Facebook, they must actively self-censor – they must adapt to the platform, or risk retaliation. Mackinnon then argues that because Facebook is a vital mode of communication in the digital space, it has a social responsibility to ensure a fair justice system. The system is completely dysfunctional and lacks accountability. The final segment of Facebookistan is dedicated to Facebook's data collection activities and relations with government institutions. Conceptual artist Paolo Cirio describes his experiences with Facebook's unscrupulous sharing of personal information with partners in exchange for monetary benefit. He comments on how content uploaded to Facebook ceases to be the property of the user - it is Facebook's property to do with it as it wishes. Max Schrems then introduces the viewer to his research into shadow profiles, vast data models made up of all data collected directly or indirectly about the user. The viewer is then alternately presented with stories about the great acuity of predictions that can be made with this information, including one's sexual orientation. The film then explains how Facebook acts to subvert government institutions in order to gain unfettered access to citizens' information. This topic is explored through Facebook's cozy relationship with funding government infrastructure projects and the reluctance of government officials to hold the organization accountable for their actions. Facebook's goal is to obtain a monopoly on citizens' data. Facebookistan ends with an account of the crackdown on Facebook's privacy practices in Europe, suggesting that things may be starting to change. Before analyzing the cultural significance of Facebookistan, it is first necessary to examine the social context of the work. Over the past decade, the proliferation of mobile devices and social media platforms has had a profound influence on modes of communication and expression. With the press of a button, individuals can instantly connect with their peers or share their most intimate details in the digital space. This allowed social media users to connect with old acquaintances or network with strangers over a common cultural meaning. Additionally, mobile devices provide a means of constant connection with online profiles and social networks. Due to this superposition of the digital self in everyday life, the distinction between public and private space is irremediably obscured. However, this was not without consequences. Platform owners wield enormous power in modern society; more specifically, with regard to the mediation of cultural forms and the expression of identitysocial in the digital space. Facebookistan is fundamentally about the nation-state influence that social media companies have over daily life and the era of technocratic authoritarianism that has ensued. Tech companies like Facebook have hard and fast rules – often incredibly vague – about what content is acceptable on their platforms, which are arbitrarily enforced based on their immediate political or economic interests. Additionally, social media platforms collect large amounts of information about users to do with as they please; user consent is questionable at best. To evade their responsibilities to their users, technology companies intentionally obscure their activities through lack of transparency and bureaucratic formalities. Finally, platform owners actively engage in deception towards their users and attempt to subvert government institutions to support their interests. Facebookistan's message is therefore a warning about the authoritarian control that technology companies now exert over daily life in digital space.AnalysisA defining characteristic of contemporary society is the control over which individuals use advances in mobile technologies and information in tandem with traditional modes of personal performance. The modern media landscape is permeated with messages and symbols, leaving individuals with a skepticism about information and a mastery in redefining their digital persona based on these evolving cultural artifacts. Driven by their desire for connection and social bonding, individuals willingly offer themselves to the surveillance devices constructed by social media companies; they feel safe in their comfort of navigating the digital space. Facebookistan provides a popular critique of the recklessness in which people – particularly those born in the Internet age – surrender themselves to technology companies, particularly when it comes to social media platforms. To this end, the documentary aims to persuade the viewer to critically reflect on their own false sense of security in relying on these platforms for personal performance. Facebookistan achieves this by illustrating the extent to which social media platforms retain user information, the concern with which predictions about the user can be made with this information, and the possibility of this sensitive data being used for the political or monetary benefit of the platform owner. Furthermore, it also shows the ability of these organizations to censor their digital expression as they see fit, without any transparency or accountability. Thus, Facebookistan is fundamentally a critique of the unconsciousness in which contemporary society consumes social media. EffectivenessFacebookistan is effective in its efforts to persuade the public to think about their engagement with social media. By demonstrating the scale of the collection of personal information and the uncanny intimacy with which predictions can be made with this data, the viewer must accept the idea that social media platforms probe their social lives far more deeply than previously. has. But more importantly, they must now recognize the fact that tech companies know far more about them than they are likely willing to share. The case examples analyzed in the film involving Facebook's content moderation activities are particularly disturbing to the viewer; Social media companies have accumulated a.