
A growing number of early Facebook employees regret the world they created - dodders
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/11/is-mark-zuckerberg-facebooks-last-true-believer
======
jasode
_> “Studies have actually proven that the more connected we are, the happier
we are, and the healthier we are,” [Zuckerberg] said this summer at Facebook’s
first ever communities summit in Chicago, where he announced a new, idealistic
mission statement: “To give people the power to build community and bring the
world closer together.”_

If that's what MZ believes, he's being selective in the studies he's reading.
It's frightening that we have a very smart guy with a fatally flawed
anthropological view of Facebook's effect.

Mass media technologies like Facebook/tv/radio/newspapers actually have the
opposite effect: _They increase tribalism and polarization._

Yes, social networks bring _some_ people together... like distant relatives
sharing more photos than the Kodak film days. Or a group that shares a hobby
like anonymous unrelated guitar players talking about gear on a music forum.

However, asking for communication platforms to bridge the gap of Democrats vs
Republicans or Christians vs Muslims or Pro-life vs Pro-choice doesn't work.
_What really happens is those groups use the technology to dig in their heels
even further and double-down on their entrenched positions._ Tribalism
amplified to the max.

~~~
ThomPete
I am unconvinced by this line of reasoning.

From my perspective facebooks net effect is positive compared to before
because it exposes people to different opinions way more than before where it
was litterally only someones closest friends, neighbours, family and the news
that you had as sources.

Trump is an anamoly and his affect on the tribalism and polarization can't be
taken for the norm yet I suspect that a lot of the reason there seems to be
indication of increased tribalism is because of him not Facebook.

There are plenty problems with facebook but from my perspective it's better
than it's bad.

~~~
orangecat
_Trump is an anamoly_

That's the point; he's not. His approval rating is 38% which is historically
low, but that still means that tens of millions of Americans like what he's
doing. If you don't know any of them, that says more about you and your bubble
than him. (That applies to me as well; of all the people I know I'd be
surprised if more than 5% approved of Trump).

 _I suspect that a lot of the reason there seems to be indication of increased
tribalism is because of him_

I suspect it's largely the reverse. "Progressives" were rioting over Halloween
costumes and the alt-right was making racist memes well before Trump came on
the stage, and that's possibly because Facebook and other social media made it
easier for them to organize.

~~~
ThomPete
I am not sure I understand your argument. How is Trump not an anomaly? How
many other politicians out there are like Trump? Voting for Trump does not
make you like Trump.

I am well aware of people who approve of him, I also wasn't surprised when he
won I expected it exactly because I don't live in a bubble.

I have plenty of good friends who voted Trump and Hillary and I understand why
people would vote for either of them. I also understand why Trump still have a
relatively large approval rating and disregarding his absurd and clumsy style
I am not as negative towards his presidency.

~~~
mercer
I generally consider myself to be favorable to those outside any kind of
'establishment', but I'm honestly baffled how anyone could be even remotely
positive about Trump.

I'm also honestly curious though. Care to elaborate why you're not as negative
towards him? And if not in public, I'd really love to continue this by email
(mine's in my profile).

~~~
ThomPete
I can give you a simple example.

I met a Trump voter from India who had spent more than 10 years and a lot of
money to get his green card.

He complained about the Dreamers and how that basically was cheating what he
had to do the official way.

These are the kind of subjects people care about when voting for someone like
Trump.

With regards to Trump and why I am not as negative towards him. Because I
don't know (besides his toe-cringing communication style) what it is I should
be negative about that isn't mostly republican politics.

By and large, his politics haven't really done much in any fundamental way. I
am aware that there are specifics that can be put forward as "bad" but to me
politics is a much larger game than just isolated events.

Fact is that we don't know what the consequence will be. The results of any
presidents politics are often seen long after they left office.

So I am basically unsentimental with regards to Trump. Personally, I am what
you would call a fiscally conservative but value based liberal.

I benefit from globalization because of what I do, but I am aware of the
problems it creates for many in the working class (which I grew up in too) and
I think Trump's appeal to them was at least an attempt at changing things in
some fundamental ways.

What I hold even higher though is the US democratic process which I consider
extremely impressive in it's ability to contain someone like Trump.

In other words like most other presidents before him, Trump is being guided by
the checks and balances of the US democratic system.

I don't see any cause for real concern so far.

~~~
mercer
> I met a Trump voter from India who had spent more than 10 years and a lot of
> money to get his green card. > He complained about the Dreamers and how that
> basically was cheating what he had to do the official way.

could you elaborate on capital-D Dreamers? I'm unfamiliar with the term.

> These are the kind of subjects people care about when voting for someone
> like Trump. With regards to Trump and why I am not as negative towards him.
> Because I don't know (besides his toe-cringing communication style) what it
> is I should be negative about that isn't mostly republican politics.

Do you truly believe that his only failing is his communication style? I find
myself troubled by the lack of decorum (weird, impulsive tweets, comments that
make no sense whatsoever, etc.), locker-room comments like:

“Whoa!” Trump responds. “Whoa! I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I
start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful. I just
start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.”

“Whatever you want,” Bush replies.

“Grab them by the pussy,” Trump replies. “You can do anything.”

While I don't know how I feel about the lack of 'decorum' I gotta admit that
even my least politically correct locker-room talk hasn't been close to this
kind of stuff.

I can understand wanting to vote against the status quo, but Trump just
strikes me as way, way into crazy territory. How do you feel about these kinds
of statements he makes? And again, I really am honestly inquisitive, and I'd
be happy to move this to email.

> So I am basically unsentimental with regards to Trump. Personally, I am what
> you would call a fiscally conservative but value based liberal. > I benefit
> from globalization because of what I do, but I am aware of the problems it
> creates for many in the working class (which I grew up in too) and I think
> Trump's appeal to them was at least an attempt at changing things in some
> fundamental ways. What I hold even higher though is the US democratic
> process which I consider extremely impressive in it's ability to contain
> someone like Trump.

I'd describe my history and current situation as very similar. I suppose it's
part of the reason why I'm so curious about all this, because I can see a
parallel universe version of me voting for Trump. Sure, from my current
universe this parallel universe version of me is alien, perhaps even
repulsive, but it's somehow still me.

I find that fascinating, having had that experience once before (conservative
evangelical until my early twenties. That version of me was actually me, not
some 'brainwashed' version I can distance my current self from. I really was a
young-earth creationist once).

> In other words like most other presidents before him, Trump is being guided
> by the checks and balances of the US democratic system. > I don't see any
> cause for real concern so far.

I wish I could be more certain about this, but based on my new consumption
there do seem to be a number of very real, very negative effects. However, I'm
not certain enough about that to say this with full conviction. If anyone can
be more specific about the actual consequences of Trump's presidency, I'd love
to hear it. So far I'm inclined to believe that it's worse than many of us
think, but I also feel that a lot of the media I've been consuming has been
unreasonably negative about Trump (and that strikes me as difficult to pull
off).

~~~
ThomPete
You haven't been a millionaire/celebrity I take it :)

I am not a celebrity either but I have hung out with enough of them to see
that "when you are a celebrity you can do anything" is pretty much true.
Especially if you look good.

It's really a discussion of the privilege of being a celebrity more than
anything from my point of view and I have no problem separating them which is
probably why I don't consider it relevant with regards to Trump specifically.
It's really a crazy world you live in when you are a celebrity.

I find it telling that you can't actually point to anything that Trump has
done which is demonstratively bad in the way it's being portrayed by most
media. All anyone really has is the indignation over his tweets and a few
areas which I don't believe there is any consensus around on either side of
the aisle.

~~~
magicalist
> _You haven 't been a millionaire/celebrity I take it_

You haven't spent any time thinking about this, I take it.

This is a really gross thing to say. Go read Louis C.K.'s statement as just
one example out of many recent ones. There are a lot of rich playboys out
there, but just because "they let you do it" doesn't mean you're not forcing
yourself on them and you're not a disgusting fucking creep.

~~~
ThomPete
I have spent time thinking about it which is exactly why I am not just jumping
on the same train as you.

You are welcome to feel it's a gross thing to say I am not expecting you to
understand what I am talking about. I was simply answering someone who asked
for my opinion.

------
apozem
One of the most troubling articles I've read recently is an Atlantic piece
examining Facebook's effect on kids' brains. Zuckerberg can say connection
makes us happier all he wants, but _Facebook_ can make children miserable.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/what-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/what-
facebook-does-kids-brains/353835/)

------
eighthnate
It's relentless. I've never seen anything like this. Everyday the media has an
attack piece on social media and tech companies.

Just a few hours before this story, we had one titled "Is it time to stop
trusting Google search?".

It's as if someone gave a command and all the media is acting in unison.

Lets see what stories tomorrow brings. Honestly, there hasn't been a day in a
few months without an attack on social media and tech companies.

------
kelukelugames
Can you change the title to something other than a yes/no question? The
subtitle is more informative.

"In Silicon Valley, a growing number of early Facebook employees regret the
world they created."

------
Kiro
My usage of Facebook hits a sweet spot I don't know where to find otherwise. I
mainly use it to follow music producers, indie game developers and other
creators. That's basically what my feed is for.

Apart from that I use Messenger to talk to friends and relatives.

I feel like I'm the only happy Facebook user here.

~~~
retailbuyout
Mostly it seems like a barren wasteland for socialization, and I don’t follow
brands. Whats left are christmas party invitations, baby photos, and
messenger.

I find myself intensely disliking my neighbors if I’m on it enough. It feels
dystopian.

~~~
tzakrajs
Don't forget Birthdays! Make sure you give the smallest amount of effort to
everyone to recognize their birthday.

------
ekianjo
> where he announced a new, idealistic mission statement: “To give people the
> power to build community and bring the world closer together.”

You should read: "power to build community and bring the world together...
inside our walled garden".

Facebook has never been about building technologies aiming at decentralizing
the web, so any power they'll give people will be on their own rules and
domain.

------
mrits
I took a ride in my friend's Ferrari yesterday. It took me a few hours after
lunch to recover and work on what now seemed like a very mundane project. I
guess what I'm saying is that I don't need Facebook to feel left behind.

~~~
ctdonath
But Facebook makes it so much easier to.

Riding a friend's Ferrari is rare. Reading about the equivalent every day
makes you feel like everyone has a Ferrari but you.

------
Analemma_
_Is_ Zuckerberg actually a True Believer? I've never gotten the sense that
he's an idealist or really thinks Facebook is a force for good. I think he
just says these things because, as the founder and CEO, he has to publicly
defend the product.

When the cameras are off, he's all about the money. Don't forget that he once
called people who willingly upload their data to Facebook "dumb fucks". Yes, I
know, it was a long time ago and he's matured since then, whatever. It's still
a smoking gun that Facebook was not created with idealism about "human
connections" in mind. At best that part came later, if it came at all.

~~~
cJ0th
> Is Zuckerberg actually a True Believer? I've never gotten the sense that
> he's an idealist or really thinks Facebook is a force for good. I think he
> just says these things because, as the founder and CEO, he has to publicly
> defend the product. When the cameras are off, he's all about the money.

I don't think this is (so much) about money for him. If he weren't a 'true
believer' his ego would have to come to grips with the idea that he has
created sorrow for millions of people all around the world his whole adult
life.

------
aphextron
Anecdotally, I told a friend last night that I had deleted my Facebook 6
months ago so they wouldn't wonder why I had de-friended them. They said they
had had the exact same conversation like 3 times this month already with other
people. Facebook may continue expanding around the world, but it's popularity
has certainly peaked in the US.

~~~
ctdonath
I've seen numerous social media juggernauts cone and go over decades. Each was
seen as world dominating and unstoppable. Each disappeared into unremembered
oblivion seemingly overnight. Facebook is poised to do the same.

~~~
madez
I have seen the same process unfold on multiple occasions. I wondered if
Facebook would break the cycle and sustain, but my bet is it will fail, too.

------
to_bpr
There has been no shortage of studies and reports on the damage social media
is doing society, especially to the young. Though I'm glad to see a movement
forming against it, it's sad and somewhat pathetic that the conversation is
hinging on the refusal to accept election defeat by one half of the
electorate.

Those involved in developing, expanding, etc. social media know what they're
complicit in and it extends far beyond, and is far worse, than simply having
some moron elected.

------
QAPereo
_It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
upon his not understanding it!_

~~~
throwanem
He's never not going to be loaded again, so maybe that gives him to feel a
certain latitude of perspective which would've only hampered him in the quest
for fuck-you money.

~~~
QAPereo
Or maybe he's like Nobel, and has already started to think about legacy and
how he's going to be viewed? On the other hand, maybe he cares about _how_
loaded he is, and since a lot of his wealth is wrapped up in the value of his
company, he still cares. Maybe he just likes to win, and not be seen as the
equivalent of this era's tobacco barons.

------
relics443
"and how Russia used it during the election to elect Trump"

Stopped reading right about there.

------
bertil
I think people are confusing two things: Facebook and its first and main
product, the News Feed (and to an extend, the advertising network embedded
into it).

Facebook, or rather the Social and later, Entities Graphs are essential
essential capacities. They are what really matters: who do you trust, who do
you care about. Those are key, they are heavily defended from pretenders and
they keep on unlocking a lot of essential value to any service leveraging it.

The best illustration of what that Graph represents is Messenger: you give
some people the right to notify you (and a subset, access to an overlooked
secondary Inbox); that service is essential. Having institutions like your
airline, payments, be allowed in there is a big step forward. If Marcus
manages that well, that extension will unlock a lot of the promisses of email,
structurally removing the spam.

Having the News Feed inform that social and interest graph is a great way to
get up-to-date information, but it comes with an indeed agressive behavioural
growth hack. I do not believe that the level alarm around that is warranted,
but what people see, political and social polarisation, etc. all those are
real issues that Facebook Researchers have looked into. Other researchers have
looked into that too, but usually with a very partial view and no access to
extensive dataset.

I believe it is a problem that openly critical researchers can’t access that
database; I don’t think that granting them access will necessarily help,
though, because most media will happily apply a big selection bias on whatever
comes out of academia, as they already do. But in spite of that limit,
internal researchers have enough of freedom to point out issues. There are
issues: they are a small team, too US-focused, tend to have liberal-
intellectual bias, etc. but they feel, and are, responsible for those issues.
More importantly, they are managed by people very willing to take in detailed,
informed criticism.

Facebook changed their core values over what happened during the campaign.
They willingly identified and explained what happened, shared details about
‘the Russian interference’ which was a lot of about weaponasing dissent than
ads. They did that because, unlike “the press” they have the means,
intellectual and technical, feel the responsability and see it as their
mission to help democracy, not let the party of their owner win no matter
what.

I do not think that Facebook can’t close the News Feed, or revamp it entirely.
They believe that its overall impact on democracy is still clearly positive
because they measure it (quite well, actually; I have doubts about other
aspects of their methodology but not that one). They have identified key ways
it is being abused and they are working on fixes.

The hearing in the Senate was an ignorant and populist pandering from
politicians whom I otherwise admired, them insistently proving they couldn’t
get the sense of the scale of the transformation, but Facebook is catching up
faster than ageing politicians.

Wising up, they will implement soluitons, most of them invisible. I suspect
one of them is flagging aggressively partisan groups, preventing rage-baiting.
I wished one of them was raising the profile of “the smartest of your
opponent”. I know they will try, measure, re-think and improve their solution.

And so will the people who think chaos raises their profile, but not as well
-- because they can’t survive the scrutiny that Facebook willfully accepted.

I remember my history class (in France) about “the Dreyfuss case”, a deeply
polarising debate in the early XXth century (in abstract: Country vs. Justice;
in practice: should a French officer condemned of treason, transparently
because of prejudice for his Jewish heritage, be freed after evidence proved
him innocent?) but I’ve been an exchange students in enough countries to know
every country had gone through something similar. No one was in charge, and
the only solution then was to forget; the Dreyfuss case stopped becoming an
issue with WWI.

Facebook is not responsible for Trump’s election, nor are they for Obama’s
election; neither is Cambridge Analytica or any other single actor. But both
those, and probably a couple more institution have the means to understand
what happened, and provide some resolution -- the resolution pro- and anti-
Dreyfuss never got. Well-intended actors will offer and implement solutions.
Transparency in advertising (what Facebook suggested first) is little, but it
will give people a sense of what is happening.

Don’t confuse Facebook, a project to make social trust something computer can
process, with the News Feed, an implementation of it. The former is being
defended; it stumbled by allowing fake profiles in, but learned from that; the
other relies on behavioural hacks that are being analysed in detail, for the
first time. A new threat on the later emerged last year and it is being
patched. But if the issue is impulse control and cannot be leveraged for good,
getting rid of the News Feed is not out of the question. As far as I can tell,
it would simply make things worst.

~~~
CharlesW
> _I think people are confusing two things: Facebook and its first and main
> product, the News Feed…_

I think that's naive and misses the forest for the trees. You may be
technically correct (as you would be saying "people are confusing Google and
its search engine"), but none of that structural pedantry relieves Facebook of
any responsibility over its obliviousness about how it's affecting society.

> _Facebook changed their core values over what happened during the campaign._

No, Facebook's change of heart has been slow, incomplete, and didn't begin
until well after the campaign ended.

> _Facebook is not responsible for Trump’s election…_

They (obviously?) are to _some_ degree, so I find that a very bizarre thing to
say. It's likely that even Facebook doesn't yet understand the full scope of
their election influence.

------
kown223
Wish someone will ask Zuckerberg if he feels stupider now that he no longer
very young, and why we should listen to him by his words he is getting
stupider by the day.

------
hi5eyes
"if the headline is a question the answer is no"

~~~
mercer
"If the headline is a question some smart-ass is going to post a low-effort
comment."

------
sidcool
I think if a product like FB is allegedly ruining people's lives, it's on
people not FB. It's not like the opioid crisis. People can leave FB anytime
without withdrawals.

~~~
yogthos
Actually, a lot of research suggests that it is pretty similar to the opioid
crisis
[https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=social+media+addiction+s...](https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=social+media+addiction+study&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjOgPLF8bbXAhVL0YMKHdQJDYwQgQMIJjAA)

------
chiefalchemist
> "Facebook’s vertiginous rise from “Hot or Not” knockoff to extra-
> governmental digital nation-state has alarmed a growing number of its
> original architects. “They look at the role Facebook now plays in society,
> and how Russia used it during the election to elect Trump, and they have
> this sort of ‘Oh my God, what have I done’ moment,” one early employee told
> my colleague Nick Bilton last month."

I read no further.

First, yes someone ran some ads, but to what end? Where they actually
effective? Of the people who we fed said ads how many noticed them? Where of
age to vote? Where real people not bots? AND changed their vote?

Where is the data that supports Russia elected Trump? Where?

Do I believe FB (and all - tech - companies) should be aware of the unintended
of its products? Of course. Shiney and new is not a free pass on - moral,
ethical and/or social - responsibility.

I'm not a Trump supporter. He'll be gone soon enough. However the incompetence
and Orwellian habits of the mainstream media will remain. That should be a
major concern for everyone.

------
navium
Everyone against Facebook is just jealous. Admit it. You don't want a world
that's not connected, and Facebook executed it brilliantly.

~~~
vnchr
Indeed. No criticism of them has merit and can be attributed to envy.

~~~
navium
I mean like there are bigger problems out there man. And plain stupid to focus
it all on Mark, he's just having fun.

~~~
vnchr
I’m glad you’re maintaining perspective in a sea of thrashing opinion.

~~~
navium
Happy to have gladdened you! btw, I'm also in a sea of thrashing downvotes.

