The social app Clubhouse is an invitation to trouble | John Naughton

The startup’s invitation-only model gives it a sheen of exclusivity, but privacy horrors lurk behind the buzz

So, are you on Clubhouse, the social-media sensation du jour? No? Me neither. But – I hasten to add, lest there should be any doubt about my social status – that’s not because I wasn’t invited to join. A generous friend had a few invitations to extend, and she offered me one. After that, she had an attack of what one can only describe as donor’s remorse, because in order to be able to extend the invitation to me she had to grant Clubhouse access to all her contacts!

When I opened the app it asked me if I would like to grant it access to my contacts, an invitation I declined – as I always do. At which point it was made clear to me that I would not be able to invite anyone else to join. As Vox’s Sara Morrison succinctly put it: I had been invited to join Clubhouse, but my privacy wasn’t welcome. At which point I deleted the app – on the Groucho Marx principle that I wouldn’t join a club that would have such a schmuck as a member. (There was also the thought that Clubhouse’s behaviour, rules and operation seem to make it illegal under the GDPR – not that a small matter like that will trouble a US-based data-hoovering startup.)

So what is Clubhouse and why has it become the newest New Thing? Guardian writer Rafqa Touma summarised it neatly: “Part talkback radio, part conference call, part Houseparty, Clubhouse is a social networking app based on audio-chat. Users can listen in to conversations, interviews and discussions between interesting people on various topics – it is just like tuning in to a podcast, but live and with an added layer of exclusivity.”

Well, two layers, actually. First, it’s only for iPhone owners; and second, it’s invitation-only. Clubhouse was founded in April last year and gained modest traction in the early phases of the pandemic after a $12m investment by Andreessen Horowitz, the noisiest venture capital firm in Silicon Valley, at which point it had 1,500 users and was valued at $100m. Now it has more than 2 million users and is supposedly valued at $1bn (£0.7bn). And invitations are apparently so prized that they are being hawked on eBay for $89.

The company’s “unicorn” status was confirmed by Elon Musk’s endorsement of it. Given that this followed hard upon his endorsement of bitcoin (the mining of which rather undermines his supposedly “green” credentials), this fuelled the feeding frenzy that now accompanies the Tesla boss wherever he goes. He has become a viral meme in human form.

But the hoopla tended to obscure some uncomfortable facts about Clubhouse. There’s the contact-uploading requirements mentioned earlier which, as one commentator put it, are not only “telling the app developer that you’re connected to those people, but you’re also telling it that those people are connected to you – which they might or might not have wanted the app to know. For example, say you have an ex or even a harasser you’ve tried to block from your life, but they still have your number in their phone; if they upload their contacts, Clubhouse will know you’re connected to them and make recommendations on that basis.”

Then there’s the discovery that Clubhouse makes unencrypted recordings of the conversations that take place in its virtual “rooms” (which are, it claims, subsequently deleted if nothing untoward has happened in the conversation). The Stanford Internet Observatory discovered that Agora, the company that supplies back-end infrastructure to the Clubhouse app, is based in, er, Shanghai. This means, say the Stanford researchers, that “a user’s unique Clubhouse ID number and chatroom ID are transmitted in plaintext, and Agora would likely have access to users’ raw audio, potentially providing access to the Chinese government.”

I could go on, but you will get the point. Clubhouse reminds one of Facebook in its early days: starting out as an exclusive network and then gathering the masses into its giant data-hoovering machine before morphing into a threat to democracy. We’ve seen this movie before. So here’s a topic for a conversation: are we up for a rerun?

What I’ve been reading

On your bike
Presidential Cybersecurity and Pelotons is an absolutely fascinating essay by Bruce Schneier, of particular interest to keen indoor cyclists.

Covid and climate
There is an interesting scientific paper by Robert M Beyer, Andrea Manica and Camilo Mora in the journal Science and the Total Environment about the link between habitat destruction, bats and coronaviruses.

Costing the Earth
The Dasgupta Review into the economics of biodiversity is an important (and huge – 600 pages) report, but there’s a good headline messages booklet.


John Naughton

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
More choice on privacy just means more chances to do what’s best for big tech | John Naughton
A study of how Facebook, Google and Microsoft have applied the EU’s new GDPR rules shows users are being manipulated

John Naughton

08, Jul, 2018 @6:00 AM

Article image
The privacy paradox: why do people keep using tech firms that abuse their data? | John Naughton
Despite privacy scandals, Facebook is more profitable than ever

John Naughton

05, May, 2019 @6:00 AM

Article image
Data-hucksters beware: online privacy is returning | John Naughton
Next May, an EU regulation will enshrine the protection of personal data into law and not even Brexit is going to stop it

John Naughton

20, Aug, 2017 @5:59 AM

Article image
The real secret of Chinese internet censorship? Distraction | John Naughton
The core purpose of the ‘50c army’ used by China to control social media is to distract people and talk up the regime, not to argue and edit comments

John Naughton

22, Jan, 2017 @7:00 AM

Article image
If Apple is the only outfit capable of defending our privacy, it really is time to worry | John Naughton
A giant private company is doing the work governments should be doing on regulation of user data. That’s not a good thing

John Naughton

22, May, 2021 @3:00 PM

Article image
Don’t just blame Facebook for taking your data – most online publishers are at it too | John Naughton
Online surveillance is rife but there are plenty of tools available to help preserve your privacy

John Naughton

08, Apr, 2018 @6:00 AM

Article image
Why ‘weaponised’ social media isn’t Brexit’s smoking gun | John Naughton
Investigations into the political role of data analytics are welcome, but they won’t explain why people voted for Trump or leaving the EU

John Naughton

17, Dec, 2017 @7:00 AM

Article image
Reports of social media’s influence on voters are greatly exaggerated | John Naughton
A new study reveals that traditional outlets online were the most popular for general election news

John Naughton

15, Feb, 2020 @4:00 PM

Article image
For the sake of democracy, social media giants must pay newspapers | John Naughton
It’s only right that big tech should compensate publishers for using their content

John Naughton

28, Nov, 2020 @4:00 PM

Article image
Why social media is the real Trump card in the US election | John Naughton
Mainstream news is not to blame for Donald Trump’s ascendancy. After all, it’s largely ignored by his supporters

John Naughton

03, Apr, 2016 @8:00 AM