Facebook, one of the largest social media platforms in the world with over 2 billion monthly active users, has faced numerous controversies and criticisms over its handling of user privacy over the years. With so much personal data and information shared on the platform daily, Facebook has come under intense scrutiny from regulators, privacy advocates and the public on how it collects, shares and secures user data.
Data Collection and Sharing
One of the biggest privacy concerns with Facebook is how much personal data it collects from its users, and how it shares that data with third parties. When signing up for Facebook, users are required to provide basic personal information such as name, email address, gender and date of birth. However, through its APIs, pixels and various plugins installed on websites and apps, Facebook is able to collect large volumes of additional data about its users’ identities, interests, relationships, photos, locations, browsing habits and more.
Facebook uses this collected data to power its ad targeting systems, allowing advertisers to serve highly targeted ads to users based on their data profiles. User data is shared with external parties for advertising purposes, which many critics argue is an invasion of privacy as users do not have full control or transparency over how their data is used. There have also been cases of Facebook user data being improperly accessed or misused by third parties, such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018 which saw tens of millions of users’ data compromised.
Types of data collected by Facebook
- Profile information – name, email, phone number, gender, date of birth, location
- Friends/contacts list and social connections
- Pages, groups and events joined or followed
- Posts, photos and videos shared
- Likes, comments and reactions
- Browsing history, search history and clicks on Facebook
- Locations checked into or tagged
- Device identifiers and metadata
- Contact information from address books uploaded
- Facial recognition data from photos
- Purchase history and activity on Facebook apps
- Off-Facebook activity and web browsing data
Lack of Transparency
Another major criticism Facebook faces is its lack of transparency when it comes to how user data is handled. Its data collection and use policies are lengthy, vague and difficult for average users to understand. There is little clarity on how exactly Facebook analyzes user data to profile interests and target ads. Users have little visibility into how their personal information is being accessed, with whom it is shared and for what purposes.
Facebook’s opacity and complex privacy settings also make it hard for users to fully control their privacy. Most users are unaware of the vast digital profiles Facebook builds about them from their online activities. They have little say in limiting how their personal data is used. Facebook has repeatedly updated and changed privacy settings, often to minimize user control and expand data gathering.
Examples of Facebook’s lack of transparency
- Difficulty understanding privacy policies and ad settings
- Frequent changes to privacy settings without user consent
- Hidden data collection through APIs, plugins and pixels
- Vague explanations of how user data improves services
- Unclear to users how ads are targeted to them
- Not informing users when data breaches occur
- Backlash over research that manipulated user emotions without permission
Facial Recognition Technology
Facebook has come under fire for its use of facial recognition technology and the privacy risks it poses. Facebook scans user-uploaded photos and automatically identifies people by matching faces to profiles without obtaining meaningful consent. It utilizes facial recognition even on non-users without their permission.
This technology allows Facebook to gather biometric data on an enormous scale with little regulation or oversight. Critics argue the lack of notice, disclosure and control over facial recognition technology is deeply problematic, enabling mass surveillance and compromising privacy. There are also concerns over the risks of facial recognition data being hacked or misused, and research showing racial biases in the technology.
Key issues around Facebook’s use of facial recognition
- Scans and identifies faces in user photos without explicit consent
- Applies facial recognition even to non-Facebook users
- Provides no way for users to fully opt-out of being identified
- Enables tagging/tracking people without their awareness or permission
- Uses facial templates to infer emotions, age, gender and race
- Limited transparency over keeping and securing biometric data
- Poses risk of misuse by employers, law enforcement or malicious actors
Tracking Across the Internet
Facebook has also received heavy criticism for tracking users’ online activity across the internet, outside of its own platform. Through Facebook Business Tools such as the Pixel and social plugins such as the Share and Like buttons embedded on websites, Facebook collects user behavioral data as people browse the web.
This allows Facebook to create targeted ads based on users’ external browsing history and track website visits. However, most users are unaware their off-Facebook activities are being monitored in this way. Having such extensive tracking occur without meaningful notice or consent raises substantial privacy issues.
How Facebook tracks user activity across the web
- Pixel tracking code in websites/apps sends Facebook browsing data
- Share and Like buttons track pages and content engaged with
- Device/browser fingerprints identify users across sites
- Facebook login integrations see apps and services used
- Acquisition of browser history data from ISPs, apps
- Tracking connections between devices used by same users
| Year | Ad Revenue (billions) | Percentage of Total Revenue |
|---|---|---|
| 2018 | $55.0 | 98.5% |
| 2019 | $69.7 | 98.5% |
| 2020 | $84.2 | 97.3% |
| 2021 | $114.9 | 97.5% |
As shown in the table above, Facebook derives the vast majority of its revenue (over 97%) from advertising. Its ability to leverage user data to target ads is central to its business model. This dependency on monetizing personal information creates an inherent tension between Facebook’s business interests and user privacy.
Discriminatory Ad Targeting
Facebook has also faced criticism over its ad targeting systems enabling discrimination. Because ads on Facebook can be precisely targeted based on detailed user data like location, age, race, interests and browsing habits, there have been many instances of discriminatory ad delivery.
For example, ads for housing or employment opportunities have been shown to exclude users of certain ethnicities. Other ads related to credit, jobs and housing have been micro-targeted in potentially discriminatory ways. While Facebook has policies prohibiting discrimination, enforcement has proven challenging.
Examples of Potentially Discriminatory Ad Targeting
- Housing ads served exclusively to certain ethnic affinities
- Job listings targeted to exclude users over a certain age
- Credit ads targeting users living in lower-income zip codes
- Excluding users with disabilities from seeing certain ads
- Targeting ads based on health conditions or pregnancy status
- Ads for products/services targeting or excluding users by race or gender
Civil rights groups argue Facebook’s ad systems make it too easy to discriminate illegally. Strict targeting options based on demographics and behavior data inherently raise risks of bias, exclusion and discrimination.
Misinformation and Lack of Fact Checking
Facebook has come under fire for failing to adequately fact check content or mitigate misinformation spread on its platform. This became a major issue during the 2016 U.S. election, when false news was rampant on Facebook and Russia used the platform to spread disinformation to influence the election.
Critics argue Facebook does not do enough to stop the viral spread of falsehoods, propaganda, manipulated content or conspiracy theories. Its algorithms reward engagement over accuracy, prioritizing content that gets high reactions and shares regardless of veracity. Unsupported health claims, election misinformation, hoaxes and other types of misinformation can reach millions without oversight.
Impacts of Misinformation on Facebook
- Spread of false or misleading claims about elections, candidates, voter procedures
- Health misinformation endangering public health, especially around vaccines and COVID-19
- Propagation of hate speech, conspiracy theories and inflammatory content
- Manipulation of public opinion through coordinated disinformation campaigns
- Undermining of legitimate journalism and news media
- Decreased trust in institutions reliant on factual public discourse
Facebook has announced measures attempting to combat false news, including using third-party fact-checkers and showing fewer viral videos. But critics say these have been too little, too late, and the platform remains filled with misinformation subject only to inconsistent oversight.
Security and Data Breaches
Numerous security failures have exposed Facebook users’ data to being improperly accessed, stolen or misused over the years. In 2019, a massive data breach compromised highly sensitive personal data on over 30 million Facebook users, including phone numbers and account details.
In the Cambridge Analytica scandal of 2018, the data mining firm was able to access data on over 80 million Facebook users without consent. App developers and other third parties have repeatedly been able access and misuse user data outside Facebook’s terms, highlighting failures in oversight and auditing of how data is accessed.
Critics contend Facebook does not take strong enough measures to lock down user data or catch improper access and breaches in a timely manner. Its huge stores of valuable personal data make Facebook a prime target for attacks, hacking and insider threats.
Major Facebook data breaches and scandals
- Cambridge Analytica 2018 – 87 million users’ data compromised
- Facebook security breach 2019 – 30 million users’ info exposed
- Data leaked to third parties like Apple, Amazon 2018
- Flaw exposed 6 million users’ photos 2018
- 400 million phone numbers exposed 2019
- 270 million Facebook and Twitter accounts hacked 2020
Given its poor track record on preventing breaches and securing data, many privacy advocates argue Facebook simply cannot be trusted with such vast troves of users’ personal information, contacts, locations, interests and browsing habits.
Lack of Meaningful Consent
At the heart of many of Facebook’s privacy issues is the lack of meaningful consent from users over data collection and use. Legal experts argue that Facebook’s processes for informing and obtaining consent from users on privacy do not meet the standards for genuine consent under data protection laws like the GDPR.
Pre-checked boxes, blanket acceptance of terms, take-it-or-leave it choices, and consent flows where rejecting means losing service make it difficult for users to meaningfully choose how their data is handled. Users often have to agree to privacy terms to use Facebook, but are not presented with reasonable opt-outs for specific data usages, sharing with third parties or surveillance-based ad targeting.
Facebook gathers data through techniques like pixels and social plugins remotely installed on websites, providing no notice or consent to users as their browsing is tracked across the internet. Users have very little visibility or control over how their information feeds into Facebook’s profiling, analytics and ad systems after it is collected.
Examples of Facebook’s questionable consent practices
- Bundled/blanket consent to all data collection and sharing
- Pre-checked boxes to “agree” to certain data sharing
- Vague intimations of “enhancing services” without specifics
- Opting out means disabling core features/service
- Constant changes to privacy settings without user approval
- No notice on tracking via pixels and social plugins
- Facial recognition without separate, explicit consent
Privacy advocates contend many of Facebook’s core services inherently violate user privacy. But the additional lack of clear, specific, informed and freely-given consent from users on data handling makes this violation more egregious.
Lobbying Against Privacy Regulations
Facebook has come under fire for its political lobbying and advocacy efforts against stronger privacy regulations. Critics accuse Facebook of trying to weaken or block new data protection laws that would improve user privacy safeguards and give users more control over their data.
For example, Facebook lobbied against GDPR, the EU’s stringent personal data protection law, warning it would stifle innovation. It has pushed back against privacy-focused changes to iOS and Android data tracking rules. Facebook also spends millions lobbying governments against regulatory efforts that could restrict its data collection and use for advertising.
Privacy groups contend Facebook’s anti-regulatory lobbying demonstrates its lack of real commitment to protecting user privacy. Its business depends on minimizing user control to collect expansive data for ad targeting.
Facebook’s lobbying and advocacy against privacy regulations
- Attempts to minimize impact of GDPR
- Fights Apple’s ATT tracking transparency feature
- Lobbies against bills giving users more privacy rights
- Argues privacy laws will hurt profits and innovation
- Joins industry groups opposing privacy efforts
- Warns stronger regulations may force new business models
Critics argue Facebook’s claims that privacy protections will make services worse or less profitable are overblown, and putting user privacy first would barely dent its business model. But Facebook appears unwilling to risk any impacts to growth and revenue by supporting meaningful reforms.
Conclusion
In summary, Facebook has faced extensive, vocal criticism over its handling of user privacy and data over many years. The core issues revolve around its collection of vast amounts of personal data without sufficient transparency, notice, consent or control given to users.
This data enables extremely targeted advertising that generates virtually all of Facebook’s revenue, creating inherent conflicts between profits and user privacy. But the lack of meaningful privacy protections, coupled with news of repeated data misuse and security failures, have exacerbated public distrust in Facebook’s stewardship of private data.
While Facebook has responded with apologies and reforms after controversies, critics argue the company has repeatedly failed to fix core deficiencies in protecting user privacy. Weak consent flows, misleading settings, surveillance-based tracking and lobbying efforts all reflect Facebook prioritizing profits and growth over privacy.
Restoring public trust and adhering to privacy laws and ethics will require significant changes to Facebook’s underlying data collection, ad targeting and consent practices. But thus far, the company appears unwilling to jeopardize its business model, even as regulators vow stronger oversight and users demand more transparent privacy protections.