Surprised Match hadn’t bought Grindr long ago.
Publishing an advocacy magazine, with a paid editorial staff, was strange for a for-profit company. The article's main criticism of the new management seems to be that they focused on the core business of the company.
If such personnel willingly uploads compromising photos of themselves online, then it's their own fault, not the platform or the platform owner's.
"Mr. Smith that works for government/corporate office of company, we have chats of you trying to solicit other men, tut tut, what ever will your wife and daughter think, we don't have to tell them but you'll have to do something for us in return".
This is literally the kind of stuff that agencies like the Defense Security Service looks for when investigating people to issue security clearance, in the case of DSS for stuff under the Department of Defense umbrella. It's just one way you can be exploited.
Similarly, I have a bankruptcy, that makes it difficult for me to ever have a security clearance again, especially anything greater than Confidential. My poor credit choices make me a 'security risk' because I might amass debt again and be easily influenced eyeroll.
It needn't be someone cheating either, being gay is still not socially acceptable in MANY circles remove wife/daughter from the above and change it to pastor, co-worker, employer, mother, father.
It doesn't have to be just the fact that the individual is gay or bi either, a listed kink could be used to coerce someone into a mildly compromising situation to maintain their privacy, then once you get them to do something compromising with their employer you now have even more leverage "oh well we could tell them you did this for us, so you'd better keep co-operating".
This is also used in television, an example being I believe season 2 of Madam Secretary with the gay Russian student at the war college and the FBI secretary in The Americans is compromised through a vanilla heterosexual relationship.
It's also used in non-espionage/corporate sabotage stages, like sextortion with both adults and minors by ether coercing someone into doing sexual things on camera or hacking a webcam/hiding a camera and catching them doing something sexual (or just naked) and using it as leverage against them.
This is a fairly competent wiki article with the TL:DR being
>There have been various attempts to explain why people become spies. One common theory is summed up by the acronym MICE: Money, Ideology, Compromise or Extortion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_spying
Compromise or Extortion being the important parts as far as Grindr is concerned.
None of the security concerns you mentioned will be solved if Grindr is placed under "trusted" ownership. Having a Grindr profile is a choice, not an entitlement or obligation. This is being framed as a national security issue 3 years after Kunlun Tech acquires majority stake in Grindr and 18 months after it fully bought out Grindr, because hate-fearing all things (and people) Chinese is too in vogue in the U.S. right now to not join on the bandwagon.
The fact is this is an app owned by a Chinese company that is being used by a vulnerable, often still persecuted, community to hook up with anonymous individuals that may or may not be openly gay.
It is worth noting that homosexuality was illegal until 1997 in China, was classified a mentall inless until 2001, in a country that still regularly bans LGBTQ events, that does not allow homosexuality in television shows or movies as part of a list that also includes 'sexual perversion, sexual assault, sexual abuse, sexual violence, and so on', in a country where creating content on the internet that contains references to homosexuality and the scientifically accurate words for genitalia is strictly banned.
If that's not enough reasons for you to scratch your head at a Chinese company owning a gay hook up app... then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
When Kunlun Tech's ownership of Grindr was labelled as a national security risk, the U.S. government certainly did not take China's LGBT rights record or the privacy of regular American civilians into consideration. It was strictly about government & military personnel. I applaud your vivid & divergent thinking skills buy I'm afraid you've gone too far from the actual issue.