Status: 03/11/2023 3:23 p.m
The federal government does not want to end its Facebook presence – contrary to the request of the data protection officer. What is the dispute about and what role does social media play in political communication?
A short video on Facebook gives an impression of the cabinet meeting at Meseberg Castle. The magnificent, snow-covered castle can be seen and the ministers at a long table. On another day, the government posts a colorful graphic in the timeline, explaining the effects of the energy price brakes in short sentences.
The Federal Government’s Facebook page has more than a million followers. But if Ulrich Kelber has his way, that could soon be the end of it. In mid-February, the Federal Data Protection Commissioner sent a letter to the Federal Government. In it he calls on the government to shut down the Facebook fan page within four weeks. Behind this are privacy concerns and the question of who is responsible for what.
“A Scourge of the Internet”
Kelber sees the basic problem in the fact that users on Facebook disclose data – and thus also when they call up the federal government’s fan page. “This idea that private corporations collect usage data when you, as a citizen, access information from the federal government – from location data, about the question of what you last looked at, whether you make more typos today and similar more – that’s real a scourge of the internet.”
This situation should be overcome as a matter of urgency, according to the data protection officer. He sees responsibility not only for the Facebook parent company Meta, but also for the federal government. But they cannot meet their data protection obligations, says Kelber: “The federal government has no clear information about which data is processed for which purpose.” That is not legal.
“Central Information Source”
The federal government has a different opinion. She sees Facebook solely responsible for what happens to the data. Deputy government spokesman Wolfgang Büchner announced that the government is therefore examining legal issues and may also want to sue against the decision. The Facebook presence is an important part of public relations work, which the government initially wants to stick to. “Social media are a central source of information for many, especially younger people,” says Büchner. “They also enable direct and rapid contact, which is particularly important in times of crisis.”
Political advisor Martin Fuchs also agrees. The withdrawal would be a major setback. “Facebook makes it possible to communicate directly with citizens, to communicate continuously and also to open a feedback channel,” says Fuchs. This means: Questions and needs can be sent directly to the government. In addition, a large community has been built up over the years and the citizens rely on the offer.
Fuchs believes that Facebook is only intended to set an example: “This is then used as a basis for taking action against other state authorities – and not just on Facebook.” After all, there is also data leakage on other platforms, such as Instagram or TikTok.
Possible leverage
In fact, there are concerns about other channels as well. The basic problem is that state actors communicate via private platforms. TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese group ByteDance, is also currently in focus due to security concerns. For example, the EU Commission instructed its employees to delete the app from their work cell phones.
There remains a difficult balancing act between public interest and data protection. Tabea Rößner can understand the position of the Federal Data Protection Commissioner. She heads the digital committee in the Bundestag and calls for increasing the pressure on social networks.
If an important player like the federal government and subsequently other authorities withdrew from Facebook, that would be relevant for the network, says Rößner. A possible means of pressure to make companies like Meta more responsible. The Greens politician also points to alternatives: “For example Mastodon, i.e. decentralized networks that have no data processing. You can also strengthen them with it.” Mastodon belongs to a German company and is traded as an alternative to Twitter.
Balancing information and privacy
Political advisor Fuchs also appreciates Mastodon – but it is difficult to get used to citizens. He therefore calls for grandfathering for social media platforms: platforms that have been on the market for more than ten years should be allowed to stay. Fuchs understands the concerns of the Federal Data Protection Commissioner and would not contradict him in the analysis.
But it’s about the interpretation of how dangerous you think the concerns are, he says: “It’s a question of weighing up which right weighs more: the fundamental right to information or the fundamental right to data protection.” Fuchs leans more towards the right to information.
How the federal government will continue on Facebook remains open. The data protection officer Kelber explains: “At the end of these four weeks there must either be an implementation or an appeal must be lodged.” That means the government either leaves Facebook or files a lawsuit. The deadline expires around mid-March – but the dispute could go on for a long time.