Do governments need to have stricter regulations of Social Media platforms to protect

the data and privacy of their citizens?

In the era of digital transformation, the world witnesses an increase of social media platforms for
personal and business purposes, such as communication and transaction. The number of social
media users has increased significantly over the past decade, along with a rise in the personal
information posted on social media platforms. Accordingly, risks of personal information losses
have taken place for commercial purposes. Regardless of the call for protecting private
information among the users and the current regulations for preventing stealing data and
privacy from the third parties other than social media organizations, chances for losing private
data still occur. There have been arguments about whether the current regulations and policies
are strong enough to fight against data thief since cases of data loss due to social media
happen all over the world, with huge losses for users and companies. Therefore, this essay
argues that the worldwide governments need to enact stricter regulations and policies of social
medial platforms to safeguard personal data and privacy for three reasons: existence of many
loopholes in current regulations, excessive control over users’ data by big tech companies, and
lack of users’ adequate awareness about data protection.

First and foremost, the current regulations contain several loopholes for unauthorized use of
personal data. The global governments have enacted a number of regulations; however, illegal
use of users’ data has been still found in large corporations, especially multinational
corporations, due to such loopholes. One of the most reputable regulations in data protection is
the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and though the GDPR is clarified by
the European Data Protection Board, additional regulatory guidance has only been offered by
academics and has not yet been formalized. Accordingly, companies can rely on this
informalization to illegally use data without being criticized. For example, big tech companies
like Google and Amazon, though they also implement some policies that are labelled as
“protecting the users’ private data”, they are also participating in taking personal information fỏ
their commercial purposes (Wong, 2020). Besides, the present regulations demonstrate
leniency in protecing private data in some industries, making several companies to take
advantage of it to thieve data. The health care industries witness a lot of claims about illegal use
of personal information as a result of patients’ provision of detailed data for treatment. This is
also the case of Google and Cambridge Analytica that are criticized for making use of private
information for their profit-generated actions. This is also the biggest challenge for the
governments as they attempt to strike a balance between the protection of individual privacy
and the interests of the larger society (Saulles, 2020). Nevertheless, the governments’
confusion in their regulations facilitate data thiefs for an increase in personal data loss.

Secondly, companies have been showing their excessive control over the users’ data. Social
media platforms are benefiting big tech companies, especially the owners of social media
platforms. Such owners collaborate with the third parties to sell personal data for profits,
jeorpadizing users’ psychology and social and political manipulation. In 2018, the Facebook-
Cambridge Analytica controversy made international headlines when the data analytics firm
Cambridge Analytica allegedly generated psychographically targeted adverts that sought to
sway people's voting decisions in the 2016 US presidential election by improperly gathering
information from the Facebook accounts of about 87 million users (Hinds et al., 2020). This
exhibits that big tech companies appear not to take into account present regulations in their
actions while such regulations are not powerful enough to scare them. Moreover, the social
media platforms owners are taking control of users’ personal data via “blurred” policies of social
media usage. Although there are many ways to process personal information lawfully, data
controllers have weaponized consent by using legalese-filled privacy policies and covert
strategies to obfuscate the reuse, aggregation, and anonymization of data subjects' information
in order to make decisions about them (Wong, 2020). Consequently, the users believe in the big
tech companies in protecting their data, but in fact, the companies are controlling the users’ data
without their awareness.

Last but not least, users lack adequate awareness on protection tools designed to protect their
personal data, which requires stricter regulations to protect users for their sakes. Users are
responsible for their posts on social media, but they have little intention to control which of their
private data should be published. It is indicated that users' private information is accessible
when it is posted on Facebook, and it then is solf to the third parties for illegal profits.
Notwithstanding, users appear to under-evaluate the risks of personal data loss. A study by
Nyoni and Velempini (2018) shows that users have insufficient awareness about their data
protection since they do not consider it as a risk to them. Additionally, the users are concerned
about other problems rather than loss of private data. When they consider their act of publishing
personal data as normal as others do, they exhibit their worries about positioning since they are
fear of being tracked. According to, the leading concern among social media users are location-
aware scenario in which they are positioned and tracked by someone (Furini & Tamanini, 2014).
That is to say, the users’ shortage of awareness urges the governments to have strict
regulations to assist the users in safeguarding private data from illegally commercial purposes.
There have been several arguments against efforts by the governments to provide many
regulations to prevent personal data from being illegal used. Several researchers and users
express their disagreement and objection against the governments’ attempts. According to the
researchers, private data use by companies refer to capitalism that is realized by the
governments, not illegal actions. The companies’ use of personal data not only generate profits
for them but also bring benefits for the governments when they provide calculated predictions
about individuals across a population. Consequently, the governments can make appropriate
policies and activities meeting the population’s demands (Afriat et al., 2021). Besides, the users
see privacy as a commodity, a tradeoff made by the individual - disclosing information in return
for free, individually tailored digital services. However, it should be noted that the governments
are required to show respect for the users’ privacy for their regulations to be followed and
valued. Also, the companies are displaying excess of authorized powers to consume the users’
information – they are exploiting users and making the information as a commodity for their
profits rather than for the sake of users (Yeung, 2018). The Cambridge Analytica’s scandal is a
typical example of illegal use and excess of authorized powers to manipulate the users’
personal data. While it caused a huge amount of loss for the company and related parties, the
government receive no benefits from the company’s action other than worries about similar
events to happen in the future. In addition, after the Cambridge Analytica’s scandal, the users
are more cautious about their privacy to request big tech companies to respect it. So, the
governments’ regulations should be more powerful and deterrent to eliminate commercial
employment of users’ data.

In short, stricter regulations should be enacted in the era of social medial platforms in which
users’ personal data can be taken at any time, from any where for any purpose. The existence
of many loopholes in current regulations, excessive control over users’ data by big tech
companies, and lack of users’ adequate awareness about data protection that lead to illegal
uses of private information by big tech companies have urged the governments to replace the
present regulations with more powerful and detailed ones. Though several opinions see the use
of personal data is benefiting the government besides the companies’ development, scandals
and losses by big tech companies over the past decades have proved that such use is not
profitable, if not to say it has caused significant harm to the whole world. After all, regulations
should be stronger and more powerful to control the companies’ acts of using their customers’
data and eliminate their negative purposes of use of data.
Afriat, H., Dvir-Gvirsman, S., Tsuriel, K. & Ivan, L. (2021) “This is capitalism. It is not illegal”:
Users’ attitudes toward institutional privacy following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The
Information Society, 37(2), 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2020.1870596

Furini, M. & Tamanini, V. (2014) Location privacy and public metadata in social media platforms:
attitudes, behaviors and opinions. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 74, 9795-9825.

Hinds, J., Williams, E. J., & Joinson, A. N. (2020) “It wouldn't happen to me”: Privacy concerns
and perspectives following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102498

Nyoni, P. and Velempini, M. (2018) Privacy and user awareness on Facebook. South African
Journal of Science, 114(5/6). DOI:10.17159/sajs.2018/20170103

Saulles, M. D. (2020) Challenges for Policymakers and Law Makers: Privacy in a world of data.
(1st ed.). Routledge.

Wong, J. (2020) The ‘Personal’ in Personal Data: Who is Responsible for Our Data and How Do
We Get it Back? Legal Information Management, 20(2).

Yeung, K. (2018) Five fears about mass predictive personalization in an age of surveillance
capitalism. International Data Privacy Law, 8(3), 258-269.

Users lack adequate awareness on protection tools designed to protect their personal data (4)

Argument: Privacy risk increases as a result of stricter regulations of Social Media platforms (3)