From the archive: this article discusses the Facebook and Grindr data controversies and Mark Zuckerberg’s US Senate appearance in 2018.
Mark Zuckerberg and “his” Facebook are under fire once again. A whistleblower revealed that the data of millions of American Facebook users had been used without consent for Donald Trump’s election campaign, back in 2015. It subsequently emerged that 90,000 Dutch users were also affected. A few days later, to make matters worse, reports surfaced that Facebook collected users’ call histories through Android apps without their consent, although Facebook denied this. By then, that distinction barely seemed to matter: Facebook had made a serious mistake, and everyone wanted to hear about it. The media saw an opportunity and smelled blood. So did Arjen Lubach, who called on viewers of his talk show to say goodbye to their Facebook accounts. Amid all that coverage, however, attentive readers may have noticed another data scandal.
The LGBT dating app Grindr had shared information about users’ HIV status with partners. It also emerged that information including GPS locations, relationship status and phone details was sometimes sent to other companies without encryption. Sharing this information is not only a serious invasion of privacy; in countries hostile to gay people, it can also put lives at risk. At the time, 72 countries maintained laws criminalising same-sex relations. In short, there are different degrees of confidentiality.
Apologies
From a personal perspective, these kinds of data disclosures are frightening. Even if you are careful, companies such as Facebook apparently struggle to explain what happens to your information. To quote Mark Zuckerberg: “One of the things we’ve struggled with over time is to make things as simple as possible so people can understand it. We don’t expect that most people will want to go through and read a full legal document.”
From a communications perspective, the Facebook and Grindr cases offer plenty to examine. Companies and their leaders are expected to respond quickly and appropriately to restore customers’ trust. Yet Facebook’s response was slow and vague. Zuckerberg’s apologies came too late and were incomplete. A subsequent conference call with journalists revealed that the number of people affected was almost 30 million higher than previously thought. Facebook also denied collecting Android users’ data without consent, angering users who felt they were not being told the truth. Honesty, completeness and a focus on solutions were particularly lacking in the communication. Not all five fundamentals of crisis communication had been followed.
Timing
The fact that a whistleblower broke the bad news meant Facebook was continually playing catch-up. It missed several opportunities to regain control and waited until Zuckerberg was called before the US Senate to explain what had happened. Thanks to his thorough preparation, it was the senators’ lack of expertise and knowledge that became painfully apparent. Many were over 70, and some even praised him for realising the American Dream. Much to viewers’ amusement, this distracted attention from the seriousness of the situation.
Why mention Grindr earlier? It appeared to be the cleverest pupil in the class. At the height of the Facebook controversy, research by Norwegian company SINTEF brought the Grindr data scandal to light. With its relevance to a much smaller audience, the story received less attention, even though the information disclosed through the app was far more sensitive. Zuckerberg was effectively explaining the use and misuse of sensitive information on behalf of the wider technology sector. Tall trees catch the most wind. Hopefully, he would see the need for a progressive approach to data and help establish standards and regulation for its use. After all, he was undeniably one of the key figures in technological progress.
More news ›