danah boyd

danah boyd wrote in a 2010 essay (“Facebook is a utility; utilities get regulated”, http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/05/15/facebook-is-a-utility-utilities-get-regulated.html):

“In my post yesterday, I emphasized that what’s at stake with Facebook today is not about privacy or publicity but informed consent and choice. Facebook speaks of itself as a utility while also telling people they have a choice. But there’s a conflict here. We know this conflict deeply in the United States. When it comes to utilities like water, power, sewage, Internet, etc., I am constantly told that I have a choice. But like hell I’d choose Comcast if I had a choice. Still, I subscribe to Comcast. Begrudgingly. Because the “choice” I have is Internet or no Internet.

“I hate all of the utilities in my life. Venomous hatred. And because they’re monopolies, they feel no need to make me appreciate them. Cuz they know that I’m not going to give up water, power, sewage, or the Internet out of spite. Nor will most people give up Facebook, regardless of how much they grow to hate them.”

and

“Thus far, in the world of privacy, when a company oversteps its hand, people flip out, governments threaten regulation, and companies back off. This is not what’s happening with Facebook. Why? Because they know people won’t leave and Facebook doesn’t think that regulators matter. In our public discourse, we keep talking about the former and ignoring the latter. We can talk about alternatives to Facebook…

Seth Godin pointed to a study from the AOL Global Advertising Strategy about who actually clicks on ads:

'Advertising is the bread and butter of the web, yet most of my friends claim that they never click on ads, typically using a peacock tone that signals their pride in being ad-averse. The geekier amongst them go out of their way to run Mozilla scripts to scrape ads away, bemoaning the presence of consumer culture. Yet, companies increasingly rely on ad revenue to turn a profit'

'Who are these "heavy clickers"? They are predominantly female, indexing at a rate almost double the male population. They are older. They are predominantly Midwesterners, with some concentrations in Mid-Atlantic States and in New England. What kinds of content do they like to view when they are on the Web? Not surprisingly, they look at sweepstakes far more than any other kind of content. Yes, these are the same people that tend to open direct mail and love to talk to telemarketers.'

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2007/12/your-ads-are-no.html

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2007/12/03/who_clicks_on_a.html

I’m not sure I understood what you mean by “accountability”. Platforms that have tried to enforce real world identities, like Facebook, have clearly shown that putting one’s name to a piece of content has very little to do with how nasty people will be. We also know at least a few (if not several) prominent people on Twitter who say and do nasty things while posting with their real names and identities.

What people put online and how they convey things are more about what people are innately than about putting real names and photos around.

Putting real names and identities also exposes people (those vulnerable due to circumstances or those who’re against commonly held notions in their social setting).

Also see: http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2011/08/04/real-names.html

I found this article quite insightful on this topic:
http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2014/07/01/facebook-experiment.html

Here's my TLDR...
If this research enables Facebook to curate people's feeds to make them happier, would we consider the cost acceptable? Does Facebook even have the right to do so? Is it ethical to hide your friend's serious post or cry for help and show you cat pics, even if that will make you happier in the short run?
Separately, Danah talks about how the media's hypocritical outrage over this is likely going to lead to Facebook and other companies still doing a bunch of unethical things to increase their revenues, but just becoming more secretive about it.

Seriously, read the article. Don't stop with my inadequate tldr.

I think danah boyd has the best take on this. Can we say that prosecution caused Aaron's suicide, in the same sense as one billiard ball sets another in motion? Of course not.

But what should disturb us is that the business and government elites of our society are very alarmed at what is going on with the internet. And they're used to crushing people in their path. The War on Drugs has completely normalized these tactics: insane sentences, extrajudicial harassment, you name it.

Someone like Aaron, who had no time for the concerns of business or government when believed an issue of justice was at stake, put himself right in their crosshairs.

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2013/01/13/aaron-swartz.html

A fairly detailed (if opinionated) answer to your question is here:

http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2008/02/06/openaccess_is_t.html

The summary is: (1) academics have historically given away their research and reviewing work for free to (revenue seeking) journals and professional associations to get distribution and prestige, (2) this no longer makes sense with the Internet, and (3) academia, journals, and professional associations are in an awkward transition as a result.

In the meantime, just use Google Scholar and hope that you are reading something important enough that someone has possibly violated copyright and posted a version online without a paywall.