Yes, that's a fact. We don't have enough feedback to verify that and be able to confirm it. However, there are very clear signs. The Facebook case speaks for itself. Facebook made certain changes that were disliked by its members. They reacted strongly. That made us realize that, basically, relationships are being managed. The trust relationship issue is a key element.
That being said, trust aside, we should understand that some of those applications develop in a local monopoly. It's a temporary condition, but we are talking about a monopoly.
Let's look at the Facebook case again. In some schools and classes, if you are not on Facebook, you are not part of the gang. Market mechanisms exist. We see them operating on a macroeconomic level. However, when we consider them from the individual's microsociological situation, we see that people don't necessarily have the option to be part of one group or another.
I have a very simple example for you. I have been a grandfather for 18 months. I had to join Facebook to see photographs of my grandson. My daughter is on Facebook and has about a hundred contacts. So although I would have preferred for her to use Google+, Flickr or another site, she told me that Facebook was the place to be, and thus left me no choice. So trust has an influence on a community level. However, it cannot necessarily have an influence on an individual level because market mechanisms are unavailable.
That has a consequence. If market mechanisms are not necessarily available, other mechanisms need to be used. If the walking is not working, we need to use talking. That's why I was saying that processes must be as transparent as possible. People must be allowed to make their own decisions and change the parameters themselves in full knowledge of the facts.
That social medium imposes a set of rules on us. It's an exercise of social power I have to participate in. As I was saying, the market mechanism does not necessarily work on an individual level. However, on a community level, social media are a place for discussion where communities of members can enter into a relationship—into what I earlier referred to as a democratic dialogue—with the developers and operators of those systems.
The legislator must ensure that this happens transparently. Afterwards, we must rely on social relationships and communities to decide in what direction things should move. That's how we can call for a boycott or service change, as people are doing at universities, where various social media are being used to discuss matters with students. They can decide together to go elsewhere if that is not working.
That along with privacy protection laws helps achieve transparency and hold a dialogue among individuals or a community, on the one hand, and the operators of those systems, on the other hand.