Neon, a youth-centric social networking app, has seen a rapid rise to the top of the Apple App Store. Incredibly, it has gone on to become No. 2 rated in the entire U.S. Social Networking category. This increase follows a remarkable jump from its earlier position of No. These numbers were first reported by app intelligence firm Appfigures. On September 18, Neon plummeted to No. 476 on its category. This steep drop reflects both its tumultuous rise and fall in the fierce competitive world of social media.
Alex Kiam, founder of Neon Alex Kiam, who founded Neon and operates the app out of his New York apartment. It advertises itself as a lucrative platform for anyone willing to document their phone calls. The app claims it can offer “hundreds or even thousands of dollars per year” for access to these audio interactions. Users save 30 cents a minute when they call other Neon users. They are allowed to be reimbursed up to $30 per day for calls placed to any number not within the prison or jail phone network.
From there, Neon was able to quickly shoot up the App Store rankings. Just as of Wednesday morning, it was ranked No. 7 overall in all apps and games! The app’s model poses serious ethical and legal problems with user privacy and data ownership.
While people have embraced Neons so far, its practices have raised the eyebrows of privacy advocates and legal experts. The app’s privacy policy gives the app very broad rights to use user data. This should include a broad license to collect, submit, upload, or otherwise grant permission for the collection of that data. This makes us reconsider what it means to use recordings without the explicit consent of all individuals in a conversation.
“Under [the] laws of many states, you have to have consent from both parties to a conversation in order to record it… It’s an interesting approach,” – Jennifer Daniels
Critics point out that Neon’s model can only capture one side of phone calls. They argue that this design has one purpose, to evade wiretap laws. This rash approach has undoubtedly lowered the threshold for fraudulent usage of data and misuse of data leading to widespread concerns.
“Now, this company has your phone number and essentially enough information — they have recordings of your voice, which could be used to create an impersonation of you and do all sorts of fraud,” – Peter Jackson
The impact of these practices goes beyond the threat to personal privacy. The ability for companies like Neon to monetize user data raises ethical questions about the trade-off between convenience and privacy.
“And some of these productivity tools do that at the expense of, obviously, your privacy, but also, increasingly, the privacy of those with whom you are interacting on a day-to-day basis,” – Peter Jackson
Neon’s business model is predicated on user participation and engagement. It offers financial incentives in return for giving companies access to their private information. The failure to provide unambiguous notice that recordings are made has come under fire.
As it stands, Neon’s terms of service include a comprehensive clause that grants the company a “worldwide, exclusive, irrevocable, transferable, royalty-free” right to use recordings generated by users. This far-reaching language has privacy advocates scratching their heads in concern.
“Once your voice is over there, it can be used for fraud,” – Peter Jackson
Neon has captured a significant amount of cultural buzz for the highly competitive social app marketplace and investment from firms such as Upfront Ventures. Its future will be determined by how it plans to address these ethical dilemmas. The app’s rapid rise in popularity juxtaposed with its controversial practices creates a complex narrative that reflects broader trends in social media and technology.