Though the WhatsApp username feature provides users with extra privacy, particularly in business, public groups, and temporary interactions, it could be abused if it is poorly designed. Telegram has shown how usernames can make it easier for scammers, impersonators, and bad actors to reach users, leading to its ban in the run-up to the Neet exam. If WhatsApp walks the same path with a vast user base, the risk could be far greater
The latest controversies surrounding WhatsApp and Instagram — both owned by Meta Platforms — have highlighted a major issue that social media companies are too often accused of: Social media platforms rush to launch new features but act too slowly to prevent harm emanating from them.
Recently, WhatsApp has proposed a username-based messaging system for improving privacy by letting users communicate without sharing their phone numbers. Shortly afterwards, Instagram has been accused of running paid ads facilitating access to child sexual exploitation and abuse material. In both instances, the government had to intervene to protect the interests of people. Though these two issues may seem unrelated, they share a common thread of prioritising engagement and growth over user safety that connects the two incidents.
Currently, WhatsApp uses phone numbers, which are personal identifiers, for communication. If phone numbers are exposed, it can lead to spam, fraud, stalking, harassment, and unwanted contact.
Though the WhatsApp username feature provides users with extra privacy, particularly in business, public groups, and temporary interactions, it could be abused if it is poorly designed. Telegram has shown how usernames can make it easier for scammers, impersonators, and bad actors to reach users, leading to its ban in the run-up to the Neet exam. If WhatsApp walks the same path with a vast user base, the risk could be far greater.
The allegations against Instagram are far more alarming. Meta’s own advertising guidelines state that ads are screened for compliance with its policies, and advertisers must adhere to both Community Standards and Advertising Standards. The policies also ban child sexual exploitation, abuse, and nudity.
Nevertheless, Instagram is alleged to have shown paid advertisements that facilitated child sex abuse, raising serious questions about Meta's oversight mechanisms. If Meta’s famous algorithm fails to detect and prevent such harmful content, it would represent a failure in moderation but also a systemic failure in the advertising process.
In its response to the allegations, Meta had merely asserted its policy of zero-tolerance towards child sexual abuse material (CSAM). However, the real issue is not whether Meta has written policies or not; Most major platforms do. The concern is whether those policies effectively prevent harm.
Meta had recently laid off 8,000 employees this year to expand the use of artificial intelligence. However, in both cases, it was human intelligence — civil society and journalists — that highlighted the potential misuse, which the platforms should have done.
These incidents should serve as a lesson for Meta and other platforms. They need to understand that trust is their most important infrastructure. They cannot market privacy on WhatsApp while allowing safety failures on Instagram. A username system could be a positive change, but only if it is accompanied by built-in safeguards from day one.
In cases involving child safety, there can be no acceptable error rate, no vague reassurances, and no excuses based on scale. Social media companies have become communication utilities. Therefore, social media companies should prioritise the public interest, not just corporate growth.
