Ethically, however, Zuckerberg seems to be on the level of murderous dictators, or human traffickers, or others that are among the very worst. I think he's willingly inflicted huge damage on modern Western society, and has certainly been the most harmful user of Internet technology.

Facebook as a whole is just a reflection of Zuckerberg's values and policies, which is not surprising for a company that's ruled by one person (as in CEO and sole majority voter). It's also not surprising that a company does unethical stuff to increase profits (and we have enough examples from Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, Google, just about anyone), but I've firmly come to believe that Facebook is in a category of its own.

I don't seem him wielding power. Its not like he's managed to convince half the population of a country that they should really abstain from something for shits a giggles. I'd go further and say that facebook it's self has surprisingly little power to shape the opinions of its users. There are powerful actors that use facebook as a medium for broadcast, but not facebook it's self.

> Ethically, however, Zuckerberg seems to be on the level of murderous dictators, or human traffickers

I think this is hyperbole. I don't like the man, and I think he is morally naive. But to compare him to a dictator fundamentally undermines just how bad dictators are.

Take for example a human trafficker. They procure girls by lying to them. They know they are lying to the girls. They then deliver them to people who they know are going to force them to be raped. The trafficker does not take any steps to mitigate the outcome.

Yes, facebook facilitated a massacre in burma. That is, to say the least, bad.

But did facebook actively collude with the perpetrators? was facebook run by members of the militia that carried out these terrible acts (I'm asking you to compare and contrast to Rwanda)

have they tried, all be it not very effectively to mitigate that risk? yes.

In short, I dislike facebook. I think there are practical steps that would make things better for people. However I think people ascribe far to much agency to them. After all, how the fuck do you effectively police 2.4 billion people? Facebook is a mirror to society. The sooner we recognize that, the better.

Zuckerberg is meeting top political leaders of his own country, and sometimes others, and negotiating with them, FB is basically treated like a country-sized negotiating entity. That's certainly has to feel like a power trip, very few people have the type of access Zuckerberg has. And as for his power internally, as CEO and majority voter, anything major FB does is ultimately a decision by Zuckerberg, so that's his power. That includes things like how Facebook's algorithms are shaped, if they're prioritizing exposure, clicks and addicting users with dopamine hits, that's ultimately his responsibility.

> I think this is hyperbole. I don't like the man, and I think he is morally naive. But to compare him to a dictator fundamentally undermines just how bad dictators are.

> Take for example a human trafficker. They procure girls by lying to them. They know they are lying to the girls. They then deliver them to people who they know are going to force them to be raped. The trafficker does not take any steps to mitigate the outcome.

I'm really not making the comparison lightly, but I think Zuckerberg is on the same level. He's procuring user data (and attention), and he does that by tricking users into maximizing their engagement with the platform, which includes feeding some of them an endless stream of harmful misinformation, or carefully designing an addiction loop for teenage girls on Instagram, or some of the other things that platform does. Then FB delivers the product (data) in full knowledge that the process of acquiring this product has seriously hurt people.

I cannot know what Zuckerberg is thinking, of course, but don't believe him naive. He might have been at first, but I'm sure he has long understood exactly what is happening, and what FB does, he just doesn't care about the people. There are certain sadistic dictators or warlords who specifically enjoy hurting people on an individual level, but for most of them it's just utter disregard for human well-being. They may not wake up in the morning excited to jail and torture a hundred random people, but they see nothing wrong with that happening as part of their effort to preserve and increase their own power and wealth. This is where I believe Zuckerberg to be the same. Does he actually enjoy genocide in Burma, or convincing millions that vaccines are evil, or driving some teen to suicide over body issues? I'm certain he doesn't. But do those things bother him? I don't think so, I imagine it's an absolute non-issue for him.

So my stance is that Facebook is beyond the typical corporate greed level of evil, and cannot be reformed or improved because it's all an extension of a one particularly immoral person seeking to maximize wealth and power at any cost, without any consideration for improving the world or minimizing harm, except what's necessary for PR.

Every large company does this. Zuckerberg was oddly transparent about it. Look how much apple, google, IBM, rayethon, boeing, amazon lobby and manipulate. Amazon managed to get states to out bid each other to effectively subsidise opening offices in their state.

> I'm really not making the comparison lightly, but I think Zuckerberg is on the same level.

You are comparing Zuckerberg to Franco, Gagdafi, Lukashenko, al-assad et al. They literally have locked people up, tortured them and had them killed, systematically. They killed thier opponents to omake sure they would no longer be a problem. All of this in the pursuit of total power. The comparison is farcical, bordering on the "everyone I don't like is Hitler" argument.

As I've pointed out, for someone who is supposedly amassing huge power, he sure is really shit at using it.

For him to be a dictator, in the digital world, he would need to be removing the competition. Firing anyone that opposes him, removing dissent. I don't see that in FB. I also don't see that on the platform. I can freely criticise zuckerberg and the company. High profile sports player have done this in the UK, and they are still on the platform.

> But do those things bother him? I don't think so, I imagine it's an absolute non-issue for him.

If they are a non issue, why the fuck are they spending literally billions trying to unfuck it? I mean they aren't doing it very well, but they are spending megabuck trying. If he was indifferent then he wouldn't bother.

For example CSAM, facebook and google outperform apple reporting that kind of offence at a rate of ~2000:1 Does apple not care about CSAM? is Cook a secret CSAM peddler? no ofcourse not.

tldr: your argument undermines how bad dictators are, and suggests you don't understand what its like to live in a country that actively represses its populace.

Let's add a header to Facebook's homepage insulting some country's leader, and see how fast they get beaten into removing it by a court.

The guy heads a communication company. This is nothing close to the power of a national government. A lone US senator might have less influence, but the president of any country has more authority than MZ, except maybe over Facebook, depending on how protective that country's law is.

I'm from a small European country with no notable natural resources nor other economic influence. Legally, the government has quite a lot of authority, but its power, measured by how it can specifically influence events, pales in comparison to the power of certain larger countries that can actually affect more.

Facebook is the primary source of news for many, many people and can greatly influence their view by choosing to bury, or prominently display, stories promoting a particular stance. It's likely that Facebook could flip the outcome of a close election in a heavily FB-using country if it wanted to. Facebook controls several of the most popular services people use to directly message one another, and it could choose not to deliver messages containing certain words or links. Facebook can (through the FB Pixel) build a highly accurate history of web browsing for most online users, something major governments can also do through NSA, GCHQ or Spetssvyaz, but smaller governments don't have that capability.

Facebook can't launch nukes or assassinate anyone anywhere with a drone strike, but if you look past the several national leaders who truly stand out in terms of power, I'd say you would find Facebook in the next rank.

Well, it depends how you measure.

Joe Biden has the power to start wars, to pardon people for US crimes, to have anyone disappeared and tortured indefinitely - but he doesn't have the power to create a database listing all American citizens, let alone the citizens of foreign countries.

It's my understanding that the NSA did just that under Bush and Obama though. I might have only one side of the story, but in all countries where some part of the state surveillance apparatus was exposed, the law seems to be carefully crafted to look like it forbids mass surveillance while actually allowing the executive to implement it.

To lead effectively, you need both. It’s rare that leaders have both. Biden does not have the soft power to do such a thing.

Soft power vs hard power also is a part of every relationship, even with your grandma or friend.

If they didn’t agree with fb’s actions they’d leave.

I have to say in interviews he doesn't really come over that way

Two things to unpack here.

its not a facebook problem. its a problem that exists in many large companies. Apple for example doesn't give a shit about individuals. (you can see that if you slip off any of the predefined support pathways)

_everyone_ to google is just a thing to evaluated and advertised to. They are literally storing your every move and using to sell adverts, services and the like (how do you think they manage the "x is busy now, try later"?)

TikTok has literally hoovered up most of the 9-18 year olds, they even say as much when they try and pitch to advertisers. its the wild west on there, with all sorts of nasties flying around

Snapchat's USP is nudes & bullying, regardless of age.

Amazon: knowingly hawks fakes, dangerous and poor quality products, shamelessly copies and undercuts producers. But they have "free deliveries" and free returns, so its all ok.

There is nothing unusual about facebook, its just nobody likes them, and its fashionable to not like them.

Now to the point: instagram for kids. A fucking stupid idea. There was no possible way it could end good, even if it was perfect.

I imagine the thought process was: the kids are flocking to tiktok, we need them on facebook's platform. We are able to protect them better than snap/tiktok/other because we (facebook) have better controls than the rest. We also have some of them on instagram already, its better to make something for them, rather than having them there illicitly.

that isn't evil, its just hopelessly naive.

Oil companies conspired for decades to hide the fact that their product directly destroys, not just their customers, not just some specific category of people, but the whole planet.

Maybe because tech companies were founded and run by young guys, there was some hope that they would be different. Well, they aren't.

It's true that Facebook is in a class of its own, but that's because of its size and power; not because of its unique "evilness".

You forgot to include 'completely understandable to not like them'.

what is this?

I don't think that's true. Jobs cared deeply about giving his users the best possible experience.

that may be, but apple the company is secretive, excessively arrogant, and very willing to cut people off, should they cause a problem.

jobs himself was an effective leader, but he was fundamentally a top class bellend of a person. Zuckerberg is dull and predictable by comparison

There isn't going to be a large social media company that reliably runs according to high-minded community principles. Not least of which because high-minded types would figure out that one company having that much power is unworkable and doomed to corruption. Sooner or later they'll optimise towards saying whatever needs to be said. And they have to satisfy too many different - opposed - communities to maintain a respect for the truth.

I guess you need to be a bad person from the get-go to be able to keep a smiling face in that place. I mean, it is not even that Facebook employees are forced be necessity to work there. They have plenty of options. It is just that honest work, like say a weapon manufacturer, pays so much less than ratting out your friends and family to Zuckerberg.

I have a close friend who works there. He's a moral person and disagrees with the social changes that Facebook has caused.

But if you ask him why he works there, he has a few standard responses:

- Most of the employees at Facebook are good and push back against Zuckerberg's harmful decisions.

- If all the good people leave, who will be left to push back?

- If I don't do this work, someone else will.

- These decisions have nothing to do with me.

All of these things are true and (I'd argue) bullshit. But history's greatest crimes and genocides were perpetrated by organizations of people who made many of these same excuses.

The core problem is that any large organization is guaranteed to be psychopathic. It's large and therefore powerful, which means small ethical compromises can cause a lot of harm. And also because it's large, every constituent can say, "Well, I didn't decide to do this." It's like a massive ouji board or a firing squad, where everyone is contributing to a concerted action, but no one feels responsible.

When they announced that they would be cracking down on leakers, that announcement leaked immediately. Imo it shows that they don't have popular support within Facebook at all.

Of course this doesn't excuse implementing features that you know are unethical, but it does help, and hopefully government will step up and attach consequences to Facebook's deceitful and malignant practices.

This is correct. There's a huge amount of internal dissent. There are internal protests and letters to the CEO.

But the dissent means nothing (except, as you say, in the rare instance of a leak) because Zuckerberg has 100% control of the company. There are even reports that Sandberg has been sidelined over time as Zuckerberg has consolidated decision-making for himself.

Well any large organization is, to a certain point, very successful and you can't get to that position with morals. Doing the ethical thing is very often not the thing you need to do to succeed or profit.

REI has 2x revenue and 6x employees compared to Palantir, but it would be impossible to argue that REI is more evil.

Be it a Psychiatrist, Chiropractor, Attorney, Priest, entrepreneur, or tech worker, they are all the same with morality.

If it affects Their Financial Security, or Financial Future--They Become Sheep. (sorry about the caps.)

When I was younger I walked out of a Chiropractic school. I knew the crux of the profession, the Subluxation, was very rare, and if people got better through manipulation of bones---it was all placebo. I was alwready in debt for 10 grand, and had a A- average.

I used to think how can all these people sit through this, and not question the profession.

I'm no hero though.

I dropped out because I developd a huge anxiety disorder, and had some kind of breakdown.

If my mind was stronger, I probally would have graduated, and hung up a shingle and go into denial over my worthiness. (I would have never done a Rotary on even my worst enemy.)

My point is many people like to belive they have morals. I sometimes think the only people left with true morality might be the Amish.

Sure people like to believe they have string convictions, and ethics; but when it comes to financial security they are followers. They might disagree internally, but really taking a stand is very rare.

You would think a wealthy man who could afford to be moral, and ethical, would take advantage of their privileged situation?

No----they are the worst offenders.

There are plenty of jobs available that don't involve moral compromises (beyond those inherent to existing) if you don't go out trying to create them.

If my employer buys wood and converts them into staircases, we make a good quality product at a fair price, our working practices are safe, and our suppliers, workers and customers are all working with us by choice - whence comes the moral compromise?

If I'm a surgeon fixing broken arms in a country with single-payer healthcare, I'm doing my job competently, and I'm not getting anyone addicted to pain meds - isn't everyone better off for me having done my job?

If I'm a gardener and I make people's houses look nice, as long as nobody's hiring me to bury human bodies, once again, what's the problem?

For readers who want a job that doesn't require you to shelve your morality, there are options out there :)

Very often in modern world this is exactly the problem. Stuff you'd be ostracized for if you did it as individual is perfectly natural for a company and in fact expected. It was designed this way, too - the limited liability is there for a reason.

So no wonder the entities that let you get away with almost anything are ruled by psychopaths. Firing one guy won't change it. The system must be changed.

You can hire an honest person that balances morality, law and profits.

Or you can hire a person that optimizes profits over anything else, and if (s)he gets caught - you just hire someone else.

It's a no-brainer, really.

It was a mistake to let people legally limit responsibility for their behavior in this way. And if companies are legal entities they should go to prison or be executed when they fuck up.

Trusting profit-seeking private companies to do "the right thing" is naive at best.

Not sure why this is a "no" versus "and," but whatever. The problem with "strong consumer protection" is it's vague. It means anything to anybody, which is useless from a policy perspective. It's language designed to gum up the legislative process, which is why Facebook's lobbyists use it. (Note: not insinuating shilling. Their lobbyists coöpted the term.)

Replace "strong consumer protection" with specific asks. Mine is breaking up Facebook. You may have others.

The tech monopoly giants of today are mostly Adtech companies, and as far as I'm concerned their very business model is anathema to free society. Trustbusting is good and needed, but customers should have been protected even before these firms turned into monopolists.

This is one of the reasons that I like the Brave/BAT model so much. It shows that you can have an "ad-based" economy without having to have Surveillance Capitalism. People could take part of the rewards they receive from the ad network and use to pay for their social media service. That was one of my ideas behind communick. [0]

And anyway, even if we wanted to get rid of "ads" altogether: WhatsApp was a profitable, sustainable business just by charging $1/year from part of its userbase. Facebook bought them because they knew it could become a threat to their business model.

[0] https://communick.com

It's questionable, but I think the idea is that ad tech makes ads more valuable? Ie a user gets something relevant to them.

Maybe the future will be this personalization happens offline on the user's device.

Your example on WhatsApp buttresses my point I guess. With payment, businesses have to rely on part of their userbase. And we all know that segment largely comes from particular geographies. This knowledge largely affects a company's strategy.

Ads are not totally different -- CPC/CPM varies across markets. But maybe can be compensated by volume.

This is what they want us to believe. I am pretty sure that in some years we will look at this claims from ad tech in the way that we see today the mid-century claims from Big Tobacco about the benefits of smoking.

> Maybe the future will be this personalization happens offline on the user's device.

It's already part of the present. This is exactly how Brave does the ad-matching. To make it perfect the only thing that I think is missing is for the user to have a way to train their own matching model, or at least to provide some kind of feedback about the types of ads that are relevant to them.

> And we all know that segment largely comes from particular geographies.

I believe that most companies already operate on the assumption that they will provide the service globally and lower-income markets are subsidized by richer regions. That is certainly true for any product that depends on network effects.

And for the products that do not depend on network effects, then the segmentation is likely to be a good thing. A more diverse set of companies, trying to solve the specific problems of different markets - instead of pushing for one-size-fits-all plans from big Corporations - is good thing in my book.

Time for consumers to get their rights back!

Please stop demonizing "profit-seeking". The problem is the lack of ethics of Facebook and Big Tech in general. Putting it on "private, profit-seeking" companies is a tired, sophomoric take.

If not then the comparison is not really valid.

> The problem is the lack of ethics of Facebook and Big Tech in general.

And big oil. And big pharma. And big anything.

Large corporations are built to maximize profit. And it is this focus on profit that is the problem.

So 'profit seeking'...

Profit-seeking should not imply unethical, no need to twist language when there is already the vocabulary to convey the proper meaning.

Nobody said that profit-seeking implies unethical. It was said that profit-seeking companies should not deserve our unconditional trust.

Well the last time I checked I didn't turn a blind eye to my work helping to start a promote a genocide in Burma so I really don't see your point.

I don't think that profit-seeking ever results in behaviour that is ethical. If I make a decision based on my desire for more money then it is almost always going to be a choice not based on ethical or moral values.

The difference is the scale. If I cut a few corners as a independent contractor then at worst my client gets slightly less value from their money.

If I cut corners as the owner of a chain restaurant then my profit-seeking has an impact on the employees I have and my customers.

If I am a major corporation that has billions of users then my profit-seeking has incredible impact.

If so, you'd have to argue why you want to change a neutrally-charged concept into something that carries negative connotations.

I don't understand this. At the end of the day they are separate things, probably you are saying a profit-seeking company is more likely to be unethical?

The fact that two things are usually correlated doesn't make them the same, right?

Somehow, this was translated into: profit-seeking companies are unethical. Which is not what I said.

> There is certainly an incentive for companies to make their ethics secondary to profit.

Replace "companies" for "dentists", "engineers", "plumbers" and "cooks", and this statement is still valid. The temptation to cheat and cut corners to favor short-term gains will always exist.

Yes, larger corporations give the ability for individuals to distance themselves from the consequences of their actions, and therefore it is more likely to see unethical behavior from large, faceless corporations. Still, this is not about "profit-seeking" or "profit-maximizing".

Your issue (and mine) is with Corporatism, not Capitalism. It is an important distinction to make.

Nobody said that. The assertion is that Facebook's culture either attracts or breeds people unbound by conventional morality.

They lie. They break laws. They do things nobody else would find conscionable that makes them a single-stop shop for pen testing the limits of the world's regulatory and legal systems. (The latter not being generally bad, though it is in the specific cases involving Facebook, e.g. Instagram for Kids.)

Nobody can make a diagnosis from a distance. I am saying their actions are substantially and increasingly indistinguishable from those of someone so afflicted.

Lying about X-Check to their Oversight Board is one such instance. It's stupid. It's so stupid. If those who lied--and there were several, at least five to my count--who thought through whether they should lie, or if there were other, better options, they would have come to the rational conclusion. But they didn't. There was instinct built over years of cultural conditioning, and they did what they do. They lied.

I have good friends at Instagram, WhatsApp, formerly Facebook (going back to the early days)--the whole shebang. It wasn't always like this. But within the last decade, senior leadership started acting like it was them against the world. That attitude created the situation they scorned.

Because of the last few decades of weak law enforcement, lying and breaking the law is seeking profits.

Most large companies make very calculated decisions to break the law while weighing the risk of getting caught. In many cases, the fines are tolerable when considering much larger profit.

Anyone remember the Robber Barons? It is an inherent problem with the system.

I think it is sociopathy. They know what they are doing is wrong but do it anyways.

Which is worse really