We all worry about privacy, whether we are on social media or not. Today's world is growing rapidly, and, as such, too much information can become a little bit difficult to handle. Some things happen to go under the radar, while others are just not dealt with in a correct manner. As sensitive as we are to social media, we can still fail to read between the lines of a situation if we do not understand the true scope of it, and how it all really functions.

Mark Zuckerberg accused of selling private information

Just recently, a somewhat older event has made a come-back.

Founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, is being accused of being associated with the selling of private information to Russia. More specifically, the information was said to have been used to tamper with our 2016 Presidential election, here in the US. Zuckerberg was asked to testify on the behalf of Facebook at the first of two Congressional Hearings, on April 11th.

My question is simple, given this age of Information that we are now in. We are living in times where information is not only everywhere, but it is also evolving. With that in mind, is Mark being exposed to the light of transparency, or is he simply being brought into the controversy of the evolution of a developing atmosphere? There is a saying that goes something like — those who are too close to the fire, tend to be subject to burns.

Zuckerberg’s appearance is being called into question by the glow of the flame of what Facebook is, but any damage on Mark’s end will have to be told of by time its very self.

The prevailing reality

Mark’s hearing really bloomed into its own thing. It went beyond the controversy, and into the very fabric of social media itself.

This is territory which calls into question the very ideals on which the internet itself has been made. The freedom of people, through the freedom of information. The justice of information, through the justice of the people.

A lot of what I heard in Mark’s testimony, paired with the Congress’s reactions towards Mark’s word, made it seem like there was a huge chasm in the understanding between the two sides over how social media really needs to be looked at.

There are more broad views to take in terms of something being a social tool, than simply looking at the black and white facts of what may or may not have happened. The reason why things like Facebook are so compelling is not just because we can talk to each other, but because talking to each other is how the world moves. If people discover new ways to communicate with each other, then that means new ways of moving as a society.

Facebook does not have any negative intentions, but, because of a lack of understanding, there are insecurities on the side of the Senators. Congress asked Mark, “How does a business that doesn’t charge anything, make any money?” to which, Mark paused for a moment, and calmly said, “we have ads, sir.” The response to Mark was a simple, “Oh.

I see.” The Senator simply moved onto the next question, according to the Washington Post. That, right there, is enough for me to see what I wanted to. There is a very simple, yet vital truth, to this whole controversy, in that one moment.

If you do not know that social media profits from the ads that it shows, then you do not know enough about how social media works to expect everything that happens around it to make sense to you. There was a very serious tone coming from the Senators, who felt the need to ask their questions in a very dramatic tone of voice. There were a few exceptions to that trend, but my personal take away was that the points that were hit upon seem to all revolve around common sense.

My belief is that everything will be worked out. There could be great, great benefit from their interaction, as stressful or awkward as it may have been.

In summation

Quite frankly, Mark answered every single question with an open heart, and an open mind. Nothing made him stammer, and nothing made him say anything that he should not have said. Time constraints aside, I feel like it is pretty hard to complain too much about anything that was able to be squeezed out within the allotted time-frame. I applaud Zuckerberg for being able to both hold his ground and to have responses which hold their own weight in the face of the onslaught of controversial questions.

One big thing that I picked up on was when the Washington Post reported that Mark made the comment that there is a need for the operations of their company to be "monitored in ways that ensure that connections not only are able to be made, but that they will be positive, as well." What I see there is actually pretty big.

There, in that remark, lies a possibility: The possibility there could potentially be more jobs to be created in relation to both Facebook, and all social media abroad.

Let’s be real. If all of this controversy ends up winding down into needing more people to do the watching, then that means, by default, there will need to be the creation of jobs. Now, maybe that means that the general monetization done through advertising will get a chance to take a step forward in its own evolution? Keep in mind, these are my own questions, but they are ones which high-light why a congressional hearing, like this one, might be so important. It’s not just about taking a step forward in our world. No. It is about taking a step forward into a new world.

I do, however, see how this could lead to needing there to be a membership fee in order to be a user of Facebook. The truth is, if you are going to create more jobs, then that means the need to make more money. Without wanting to come to any conclusions, let me just say that this meeting that grew out of a controversy is a very good thing, and very important to have happened.