Facebook Terms Of Service Using Public Service Announcement Theory And Animation Theory

Improving the understanding of the Facebook Terms of Service: Mixed method analysis for Facebook users using Public Service Announcement theory and animation theory.

Introduction
This research explores animation and the ways in which it can improve the representation of the Facebook Terms of Service. Facebook users are not reading or understanding the Facebook Terms of Service (O’Callaghan 2014:1). They click accept without reading the terms and conditions (Grothaus 2014:1). As a result, this affects privacy and creates unwanted consequences when posting IP content (pictures and videos) online (Debatin et al. 2009: [sp]). Privacy is an ongoing concern in society and has spread to more platforms. In the 21st century, with progress in technology
I aim to test out the hypothesis ‘Animation can improve the understanding of the Facebook Terms of Service’. It will be proven by creating an animation that highlights possible consequences of one’s actions so as to inform users of the Terms of Service. This will remind people it is their responsibility what content they post online. I will interview a sample group who will read the Facebook clause, then watch the animated version. Each participant will give feedback on what they thought of each format after answering a series of questions that pertain to animation and text.

Rationale
Not reading the Facebook Terms of Service allows people to be taken advantage of. This could be avoided at an early stage if people were aware of the consequences of their actions when posting. It is important to look into this problem and create a solution so as to create awareness and future education on the importance of reading terms and conditions. People need to be more aware of what is in the Terms of Service and think twice before posting content
Privacy is not simply about the state of an inanimate object or set of bytes; it is about the sense of vulnerability that an individual experiences. When people feel exposed or invaded, there’s a privacy issue (Grude et al 2006:5).

Facebook has time and time again violated the privacy of their users making them vulnerable. In 2005 there were already weaknesses in the Facebook privacy system whereby Facebook passwords were being sent without encryption (Debatin 2009:3). This allows third parties to interrupt privacy and retrieve personal information (Debatin 2009:3). This problem has been fixed with passwords now encrypted (Debatin 2009:3).

Facebook is able to collect information about its users unless users specifically opted-out. However, in September 2007 users could not choose to opt-out with data still being collected, Facebook changed a setting that was previously more secure (Debatin 2009:3).
A well-known privacy feature allowing only friends to see your profile was not in force for the first three years of Facebook’s existence (Debatin 2009:3). This allowed information to be seen in searches, even when restricted unless the user opted-out from searches (Debatin 2009:3). This problem was only fixed once a technology blogger made it public in June 2007 (Debatin