| Hey y'all, it's Austin. Last week, Facebook Inc. issued a mea culpa. The company's recent attempt to update its privacy policy on WhatsApp sparked fury over new data-collection practices, which many perceived to mean Facebook would soon mine personal information from private chats. The confusing announcement sent droves of users to competing messaging platforms such as Telegram and Signal. Now Facebook is trying again. In a blog post, WhatsApp acknowledged it botched the update, reiterated a commitment to end-to-end encryption, and said it would release a detailed preview of the new privacy standards instead of opaquely forcing them on users overnight. This pattern—abstruse announcement, community backlash, inevitable apology—has been a common one for Facebook, which has struggled for years with public messaging and public perception issues. Those challenges have taken on greater consequence of late. Honing its messaging is not only key for Facebook to effectively roll out product features, it's crucial to try to win over antitrust regulators, corporate rivals like Apple Inc. and even entire countries of users. Facebook's reputational woes have historically been self-inflicted. After years of platform abuse and Cambridge Analytica-type scandals, the social network has been dealing with major trust problems. Every tweak of its app portfolio, no matter how well-intentioned, seems to leave critics wondering whether the changes are good for consumers or are simply another play to gobble up more of their lucrative data. "Your user agreement sucks," Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana told Facebook Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg at a 2018 congressional hearing, adding that the company's terms and conditions were designed to "cover Facebook's rear end," rather than for the sake of transparency. Zuckerberg and team have struggled to counter this narrative, leaving Facebook vulnerable to continued attacks. Apple CEO Tim Cook, for example, has defined a major overhaul coming to iPhone tracking as a victory for user privacy, while suggesting Facebook has been "misleading users" and engaging in "data exploitation." Zuckerberg, on the other hand, has tried to reframe the debate around the harm Apple's new iPhone system, which will require users to opt in to mobile tracking, may do to small business advertising. He's also said that Apple is merely acting out of self-interest to hurt a chief adversary in the technology industry. It's not clear if Zuckerberg's arguments are cutting through the noise. Though Apple certainly isn't innocent when it comes to data collection, Cook has made privacy a centerpiece of Apple's products, which has proven incredibly marketable. The risk for Facebook is that its ongoing criticism of Apple could be perceived as driven by a dire need to protect its own data-powered advertising model—not exactly a stance likely to improve trust in its platform. Such skepticism was on display last week when Facebook cut off news sharing in Australia in response to proposed legislation that would force tech giants to pay publishers for news content. Some believed Facebook was responding fairly to a problematic internet law, but the company's logic was lost in the complexity of the issue and knee-jerk reactions followed. Australia's Treasurer Josh Frydenberg lambasted Zuckerberg for the move, which, again, was seen as an aggressive bid to protect the company's business model. U.S. Representative David Cicilline tweeted that it was a symbol of how Facebook "is not compatible with democracy." Without more effective public messaging, it's likely Facebook's announcement-backlash-apology cycle will continue. Next month, Zuckerberg is again set to testify remotely alongside other tech execs before Congress, where he's often a punching bag for politicians. Expect Zuckerberg to echo the sentiments in WhatsApp's recent blog mea cupla: "We've reflected on what we could have done better here," the company wrote. "We'll be doing much more to make our voice clear going forward." -- Austin Carr | 
Post a Comment