Argumentative Essay On Privacy

What is privacy? Google defines privacy as the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves, or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively. But is that everyone’s definition of privacy? Definitely not. The issue about privacy and how online social networks leak personal information is constantly being debated by writers. The articles “How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life” by Jon Ronson, “What ‘Public’ means Now” by Clay Shirky, “Why Facebook Privacy Settings Don’t Matter” by John C. Dvorak, and “Privacy and Social Media” by Theodore F. Claypoole all argue about the what the main issue is with online privacy. Is it Facebook’s fault, the internet’s fault, or an individual’s fault? Each person thinks that it is something different which is why this issue has yet to be solved. With personal information becoming more and more public each day, everyone agrees that there is an issue with online privacy. However, a solution would emerge much quicker if everyone debating the issue agreed on who

is responsible for the information posted online, the appropriate way the public should react, and the definition of privacy.
In this debate, many people argue that accessibility to one’s personal information should be controlled by the individual themselves. In other words, if an individual does not want specific information becoming public, then they are responsible for not putting it on social media. In an article debating who’s fault it is for posting on social media, the author states, “And why do Americans continue to do these dumb things? It's a unique reflection of the short-term thinking that plagues the culture” (Dvorak). As we continue to post on social media, we continue to compromise any of our personal information. While some people involved in this debate think that this is where the problem with our society stems from, others argue the other side and believe it needs to be taken into a higher control. Does the Government need to start controlling what is and what is not accessible to the public?
In another article about social media and how it effects personal privacy, Claypoole believes that a change needs to occur. In his article, the Government should start controlling what is accessible to the public and where lines must be drawn by passing laws. Claypoole states, “Both the FTC and state legislatures are taking steps to protect the American public from inappropriate intrusions on their privacy through social media” (Claypoole). For example, there is a debate between companies and the Government on what is necessary information to obtain about a possible future employee. Employers want access to the accounts but the laws prohibit them from doing so. People involved agree with this change and believe that it is helpful in protecting an individual from having their personal privacy leaked. This causes a huge disagreement that will not be resolved until they start debating about the same thing. This is an argument of fact and it proves that a problem with online privacy exists but does not tell who is ultimately responsible.
Social media has had a very large impact on many parts of the world but has also created public shamings. However, Shirky does not believe that social media is even the issue and instead it is the technology that everyone uses today that compromises privacy. He claims, “Prior to the rise of digital social life, much of what we said and did was in a public environment — on the street, in a park, at a party — but was not actually public, in the sense of being widely broadcast or persistently available” (Shirky). Therefore, making something public was harder than keeping something private which has now completely flipped into the opposite happened because of the internet. This evaluation argument raises questions about whether or not we should avoid the internet and social media and proves the many dangers from participating in it. The internet is responsible for the leakage of personal information. However, another author, Jon Ronson, blames the public for the fast spreading information instead of the technology.
In his article Ronson believes that the public is causing more trouble than necessary. Ronson argues that how the public deals with situations like this is cruel and states, “It almost felt as if shamings were now happening for their own sake, as if they were following a script” (Ronson). Many times when the public shames an individual over something possibly offensive posted on social media it stems from a misunderstanding of what that person actually meant. It is impossible to identify someone’s tone unless you are actually listening to them speak as opposed to reading what they have typed. Although the individual would be considered responsible for their post, it would not become accessible to so many if the people of the public society did not constantly share everything posted on social networks. With this policy argument action needs to be taken and a change needs to occur. With the technology used throughout our society today it is near impossible to keep personal information private.
Today, privacy seems to mean multiple different things to many different people.

John C. Dvorak, author of “Privacy and Social Media”, argues about how many people are so unconcerned with their privacy. He states, “This amuses me because it seems as if the majority of Facebook users don't even know about or care about the privacy settings” (Dvorak). This argument of definition brings up the debate of the multiple definitions of privacy. For example, an individual who applies to Dvorak’s statement might have a definition of privacy as something very open and simple. However, someone else who may be applying for jobs may think of privacy as a much more serious concept. Therefore, the debate over what is “private” information means nothing due to the fact that everyone’s definition of privacy is different. Once everybody agrees on a worldwide definition of privacy then this issue can be debated and solved

properly.
Ultimately, the debate over privacy and how it is affected by social media has yet to conclude and will constantly be argued until common ground is met first. If we do not agree on who is responsible for the information, an appropriate reaction by the public, and the definition of privacy, then we will get nowhere. Most individuals would never purposely want their personal information leaked which is why lines need to be drawn and a solution should develop soon. If not, the society that we all live in today will continue taking steps backward instead of forward in the right direction.