TechCrunch, Twitter and Digital Age Ethics

The first question that comes to mind pertaining to the TechCrunch publication of internal Twitter communication really has little to do with Twitter’s strategic planning. How did this seemingly enormous data dump happen to land in TechCrunch’s lap? According to TechCruch, their receipt of the material in question originated with a hacker, who intends to go public. It seems strange that upon receiving zip files loaded with illegally procured files there would be any consideration of publication whatsoever. Any blog or journalistic outlet must consider the role it plays in these situations, particularly when shielding illegal activity. To flirt with the TechCrunch logic it follows that if any unscrupulous hacker manages to gain access to confidential data, publication ought go to the highest bidder, thus provoking a foreseeably real market for blogworthy secrets. This position is preposterous, and TechCrunch has pried open the debate about business ethics in the digital age.

Clearly many bloggers don’t toe the same ethical lines that real journalism does, given the tools and training involved this comes as no surprise. But what about the real motivation behind the publication of the hacked material? Nothing other than that most coveted currency of traffic and viewership motivated this clearly unethical post. Given the clearly sensitive nature of the information Twitter stands to take at least some modest blows in terms of perception on the street, not to mention the carefully managed relationships with high profile stakeholders such as Diddy. Media moguls like Diddy rely first and foremost upon the credibility afforded by the millions of young, financially liquid consumers that drive their business. The language within these Twitter documents marginalizes him and his status, tarnishing both his and the Twitter brand simultaneously. Who is the responsible party for any real balance sheet damage? Any good lawyer will quickly point toward the deepest pockets responsible, doubtfully ”Hacker Croll”, especially given the likely rise in revenues to TechCrunch as a result of this editorial decision.

The paranoia found within corporate culture comes justified with this news.