Public audit matters

Not many businessmen are fond of activist investors. For obvious reasons: they make a lot of noise and, as history shows, will keep auditing the behaviour of the companies they have put their monies in. That’s precisely why shareholders love these troublemakers. Such activism forces companies become less opaque in their practices and make them more accountable to public money. We don’t yet know whether any activist investor firms or individuals have put their money in Facebook, but given the way the social media company has been operating, it is highly unlikely that it had any. Given the way the company’s stocks are stacked (more private and less public), it is unlikely that an activist investor group can force it to mend its ways.

That’s why we need activist users to keep companies like Facebook rooted and reassuring. This is important especially with the call for social auditing of social media networks getting more vocal in the aftermath of the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica big data scandal. Granted, government policies and regulations can make a difference, but they don’t necessarily represent a wholesome public audit, and smart companies — which obviously Facebook has been — will always find ways to circumvent such regulations.

Data handling

If you want evidence, look at Facebook’s response to the privacy scam. Its CEO Mark Zuckerberg has told US lawmakers that the company is improving the way it handles user data and, obviously, privacy. Facebook says it will ensure maximum privacy protection.

But an FB user in, say, India would need more than that given the way FB has been toying with the terms and conditions. Sample this: not many users in India have known that when they signed up on FB, they actually agreed to the terms and services of FB’s headquarters in Ireland, and they could have demanded better privacy protection under European laws. Only the users in America and Canada come under the weak US privacy laws. Now Facebook is moving some 1.5 billion users out of the ambit of EU’s new and more powerful General Data Protection Regulation. Most users would now fall under the emaciated privacy laws in America.

Facebook says it will extend new privacy measures to comply with the EU rules to everyone, everywhere. But it keeps changing the terms-of-service for regions. Such oscillations need to be seen holistically if meaningful changes have to be brought in the way user data is handled. Policy measures alone can’t make this happen. The problem with policy is, it is region-specific and, hence, fragmented — and not universal, like the ethos of privacy. It is here user activism can make a difference.

User communities focussing on policies of social media giants do exist. On and off, they raise alarm over specific practices of companies, including Facebook. But such actions are limited to the fringes now. This should get more public support and go mainstream. Individuals who share personal data with such companies must step forward to be part of such communities and constantly keep auditing policies of these internet companies.

They should see themselves as de facto shareholders of such companies because, as we know very well now, these companies feed off our data, which also means even though the user enjoys a ‘free’ service, technically speaking, her data pay for the service. Philosophically speaking, the data even work as an ‘investment’ in the company. So, the user must act more responsibly.

COMMENT NOW