The bug is the design: as Mark says, “you could find almost anything on the internet — music, books, information — except the thing that matters most: people.” Why was it necessary to create a machine for the human ego? Yes, people matter, but I’d argue what matters most is the things that serve people — institutions, media, infrastructure, architectures, education, etc.
You’ve missed an opportunity to examine this initial premise — the original sin isn’t necessary ads, but a design premised on flattening of the human soul and purpose.
7
"All your data are now belong to us".
Kara, I think you just won the internet today.
I've chosen this as the 2019 "meme of the year".
5
Why do businesses have to pretend they aren't in it for the money? Facebook doesn't exist to "connect people," it exists to make money.
379
@Shea I've never understood this either. Just come out with, it's legal. I've always felt mildly insulted with the euphemisms and their desire to make the world a better place for everyone type rhetoric.
68
@Shea
I don't think they have to pretend that they're not in the business of making money. But they do have to pretend that they're in business of connecting people, because the opposite is the truth.
53
@FJS It's really to do both. When you watch network television, supported by ads, do you not think their mission is to entertain and engage you? I can accept an honest answer to the question is both. Not JUST the seemingly altruistic motive.
15
I've been sitting on it, but I'm definitely going to delete FB tonight. It didn't help that I heard on NPR something about Zuckerberg killing one of his goats for dinner (something about laser guns and knives then sending it to a butcher).
83
Thank you - this is spot on and hilarious. A friend compared quitting Facebook to going on a diet, seems like an obviously good idea but is hard to stick to and can lead to self-loathing at times. After trying and failing miserably to delete my account (hello, self-loathing), I decided to mess with the algorithms. Since I couldn't shut off marketplace ads, I changed my location to San Francisco (I live on the East Coast); now the ads are more interesting, and I don't get tempted to pick up that free leather couch I don't have room for. I also clicked on just enough of the wrong ads to convince Facebook I can afford to shop at Neiman Marcus, run marathons, like to cook, and need 200 pairs of shoes and sneakers. Up next: let's see if I can reinvent myself as a Spanish gardener.
238
@Katie: And you touch on the essence of all of this. It's something the likes of Zucker and all the rest of the Silicon cognoscenti either don't realize, or choose to ignore (take yer pick). To a digital native all that social media, et.al., proffer are easy to game. As more and more do as you profess it will make a hash of all their lovely precepts and plans won't it? So it goes.
John~
American Net'Zen
24
@John Exactly.
9
One thing this piece missed is a focus on "controlling the ads you receive" and "a desire to receive relevant ads" this is a thing that doesn't exist and has never existed. No one wants ads, no one wants relevant ads, and no one wants to spend their time telling an AI how to do its job.
Advertising is slowly destroying the productivity of our society, it isn't free - it costs people time in tiny chunks and it is slowly training us to be less engaged and more jaded. This is a real danger to our modern world.
321
@Alex
Yes.
Also, since advertising is a delivery vector for malware, and since no advertising site will commit to screening against malware, everybody should use ad blockers.
Unless you want your online banking information (and everything else on your computer) leaked.
Content providers like the NYT can get me to stop using ad blockers when they guarantee the advertisements they serve are benign. Until then, fuggedaboutit.
57
@Alex Look around your house, at your cars, your products that make your day work and give you enjoyment. How did you find out about them? What if there was no advertising, and we just thought let's have one toothpaste, and one car and one soap? Is life better now? Russia tried that.
6
@Alex Akin to hordes of locusts devouring everything in their path, advertising is the great pestilence of the digital age.
27
"Technology has always been about putting power in the hands of as many people as possible." Please, please let this be writ in gilded letters high atop the high arching security towers of each tech billionaires' opulent Dr. No style lair and the bows of their record-breaking yachts! Let it grace a prominent place in their equal part Disneyland equal part social Apartheid inspired HQs so that the grubby politicians and hopelessly ignorant journalists granted access to these shrines to hear the wishes of their young masters would know of the benevolence of those they serve. Most important let's stamp the phrase on the water bottles passed out to the homeless during that beacon of the future San Francisco heatwaves and plaster it on on the sides of the newly devised mobile pavement scrubbers used to remove the epidemic of human feces from the sidewalks. If power was truly in the "hands of the people" there would be no need for "philanthropy."
11
You/zuckerberg = Haberman/trump
8
If you want your company to survive, grow up Zuckerberg, be an adult and stop hiding behind platitudes and PR.
18
Thanks for the breakfast-hour chuckle. Zuckerberg should hire you. Also, the Koch brothers. The spate of ads they had late last year on NYT filled with young and diverse faces was selling some serious hog swallow about entrepreneurship and supporting the next generation. Help the Kochs just come out and say they want to rule a world polluted with petrochemicals and denuded of trees and biodiversity. Swisher, they need you.
I will be shocked if this post criticizing an advertiser makes it through the NYT comment censor. Happy Saturday, peeps!
13
Hee hee.. writing this about 5 miles from ol' Mark's office .. as the crow flies..
1
Funny how the article is locked behind a paywall...
3
Hilarious!!!!!!! And oh so true! We been monetized!
5
I find this article disingenuous. Here's why.
The relationship between NYT and Facebook is not purely one of commentator and company. They are both advertising publishers, and both profit from viewership. They both deal in consumer data. NYT's publisher company pixels this website, and uses "algorithms" to calibrate for viewership and revenue from advertising impressions. If fewer people use Facebook and visited NYT instead, then NYT benefits financially. If more people sign onto NYT, it can better "monetize people's data and offer audiences to advertisers."
The author speaks from the moral high ground of a member of the press. What is not disclosed here is just how complex her relationship actually is with the subject that she is satirising. She is employed by a company that is a business competitor to Facebook. This company also "monetizes" from people's data --- in addition to charging money for content.
The way I see it, NYT is a platform that I pay to show me ads and collect my user data which then sells my data to advertisers. I occasionally read sensationalised opinions, um, news, but it is worth it, no? As long as occasionally, I see satire that tells me how a competing company has a stupid CEO with a bad instincts for PR.
I have such disdain for vapid columns that ensnarl my attention. Maybe I'm too gullible. If I had to endure three Quip ads in a news article, it better have more to offer than bad Mark Zuckerberg lip syncs.
16
Kara, well played!
6
I’m tickled that as I read this article using my paid NYT subscription, I see several targeted ads within each article. Pot...kettle? Let’s just all be honest that this is how the world works now!
22
Better yet let us all ghost this annoying anti-safe data pest.
1
Bravo, Kara!!
3
Ha! Brilliant ... should I share on FB ???
4
too real to be really funny
2
I am posting all these Facebook articles on my Facebook page.
4
Roger will easily beat the rap and go on to sell many books.
I have found the journalism regarding Facebook remarkable lazy. Ever since Mr. Zuckerberg stupidly accepted responsibility for fixing social media, journalists have pursued him like dogs on a fox hunt. Remember Pizzagate - people believed (and some still do) that Hillary and the Democratic Party were running a child sex operation out of a pizza parlor. And who's to blame? Social media is the problem, of course. Are our mirrors that foggy? Wake up! Understand that that every politician at some time states this one lie that we've all just accepted. I know you've heard these words many times: "The American people are not stupid!" Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Yes we are. The evidence is everywhere. Look at who we elect. Look at the systems we have set up in our country. Look at what we do in (to) the rest of the world. Look at objective measures of the performances of our school children with respect to other countries. When people believe everything they read or hear, it's not a Facebook problem. Trying to put the social media genie back in the bottle is not possible. Again, on this subject the NYT is just LAZY! Instead of going after the low hanging fruit why can't the NYT do some research and come out with a series on improving critical thinking skills? Why does the NYT take such a shallow approach to this topic?
10
Two weeks ago I bought a shower curtain (no liner) at Target, using my debit card. The next day, while reading the Times online, a big ad from Amazon kept chasing me around. It was for a shower curtain liner. I made the connection. How did Amazon know I bought a curtain at Target? This is all just too creepy. There is no hiding from them.
25
Yup, I'm just a curmudgeon who doesn't use Facebook and won't use it. So take that, Markie!
2
Brilliant in every way. Thank you.
2
Nice way to avoid the WSJ pay wall. The satire is a little lame but deserved.
1
Mark, make your privacy statement we have to agree to no greater than 500 words.
3
You could have made it even briefer:
“People say I’m doing evil, but the evil I am doing is for their own good.”
Sincerely,
Zuck
7
I am "on" FB with no friends and membership in a couple of yard sale groups. No ads when I'm there.
2
As usual, Kara nails it. I got little value from Facebook (signal to noise ratio too low) and deleted my account eight years ago. (Correction: they only let you “deactivate” it). A decision that gets more propitious with each passing year.
4
Kara Swisher rejuvenates my trust in New York media writers. She can write without making the reader regret ever having heard of politics or government.
Facebook is a pig sty of hatred and commercialization. The world needs the occasional pig sty, so maybe civilization is stuck with Fb, but it can definitely be broken up with Zuck only controlling one of 5 to 20 parts.
But at least the construction crews are wealthier because of Zuckerberg's apparent fetish for surrounding his property will walls, and the higher, the better.
2
No one forces anyone to use Facebook. If you voluntarily give up your privacy, you shouldn't complain about possible invasions of privacy.
2
I am puzzled by all this vitriol against Facebook. Fact is it is an *optional* free (ad-subsidized) service. If you hate it so much, just delete your account and app and you never have to see a single ad or be concerned that FB is selling data about you. The whole movement smacks of someone complains about voluntarily drinking a poison, even though the merchant has already told you it is a poison before selling it to you.
7
Am I the only person on earth who does NOT want to see ads relevant to what I already have? When I see ads, I like to be exposed to different stuff, different ideas, different colors from what I normally buy. Living in a same-as-always bubble is boring. In fact, Facebook is boring. So is Mark Z. There it is--the secret of fb. Bore people to death.
9
Zuckerberg is just another zillionaire looking for more. Despite the T-shirts, sneakers, open offices, and groovy patter, he’s just another Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Ford, Morgan et al.
5
I don’t think we need to be so cynical about Facebook. We need to be thoughtful, practical and intentional about it. I believe it honestly started as an altruistic idea to connect people to people and to make a wad of money while doing it – nothing wrong with this. It does work, I’ve connected/reconnected with many people whom I otherwise would have never heard from again in my life and have paid no money for this platform. What has happened is that Facebook has lost control of the behemoth they’ve become mainly because they sold their soul to unregulated capitalism. I’m guessing most of us would have done the same thing given the opportunity while rationalizing it as “good for the world” benevolence. Bottom line, Facebook must be much more regulated, like any other public utility. Capitalism, which built Facebook is fantastic, unregulated capitalism which allowed Facebook to become the monster it is, is pure, unadulterated evil.
4
“Digital version of the Pacific trash vortex” Fantastic!
“All the twigs. In the world. Hilarious!
Very fun to read. A nice spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down.
6
Let's not forget that Facebook is free. It is the weakness of the American people that allow it to become a monster and it is the weakness of the American people who elected a monster. Zuckerberg enjoys making his money no different than Trump enjoys destroying America for his own financial gain.
1
If we would all start habitually clicking on ads that don't interest us and claim we live where we do not, it could strike a serious blow against the FB data mining machine. When advertisers realize that we are all faking it and the FB data is becoming rebelliously inaccurate, they might stop spending their money to focus their ads on us. I just clicked a Spanish gardening ad! I'm also looking for basketball sneakers and fleece-lined pajamas. I've changed my location from the southeast to the northwest, and I just had a sex change and shaved 40 years off my birthday. I can't wait to see what kind of useless ads I'll be seeing. This is fun! Brothers and sisters, join the revolution!
10
I deleted my account and don't regret it for one minute. Zuckerberg and Sandberg act like they are smarter than all of is and can talk circles around us. We're not that stupid. Just say no. Social media is a waste of time, and yes, Facebook was the only social media site I belonged to, I gave up on G+ years ago, same with MySpace.
5
Now, Kara, translate for us what Sheryl Sandberg is trying to tell the world in her seemingly never-ending PR gigs.
3
I tried to read the original WSJ op-ed today and barely got through it. It was boring and filled with misleading corporate-speak. Putting the paper down, I couldn't remember anything I had just read.
Ms. Swisher's translation is so much better. It's clear, honest, refreshing, and memorable. That's why I subscribe to the NY Times and read the WSJ at the library.
3
Mark Zuckerberg is a corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare king. Zuckerberg is a new" gilded age" "robber baron" " malefactor of great wealth".
Mark's company needs to be broken and busted up. He needs to be investigated and prosecuted under civil and criminal law for unfairly fraudulently conspiring to conceal the nature of his business and privacy violations. Criminal fines and imprisonment will focus and get his and his share holders and managers attention.
Ditto Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin etc.
2
Translated into only four words:
Social Media = Social Disease
1
Keegan Michael Key to the thread!
Kara, you come across as mean and vindictive - with a major axe to grind. Facebook is not jail. If you don't like it, you can delete your account. Would you prefer nobody have access to these products - Instagram, FB, and Whatsapp ? Are you mad it helped get Trump elected ?
I simply don't understand your outrage and anger...
2
Using fb is not mandated by fiat to be used by people . It is done by choice . The flavour of the day as exhibited by this article is to follow the trend , which is to bash fb . If you don’t like it , don’t use it . I personally use it , find it informative and don’t share what I don’t want to be public access . No bank account, no social insurance number etc . If they know I like to ski and I get fed ski sites and the like I am happy . The author is creating issues that 99.9 % of users don’t care about . Russia and the like are new problems in a COMPLETELY NEW method of communication. Mistakes were bound to me made and they are being corrected . The author needs to get off her high horse and find something else to bash that actually needs bashing
2
Mark: Quit FB and spend all your time with Chan/Zuckerberg Initiative. Far more challenging, rewarding and beneficial to society. Look at how you have damaged our world by “bringing people together.” Remember when you donated $100M to Newark public schools? Didn’t that feel good?
1
People consistently tell Mark that they want their ads to be relevant? Oh, please. Name one person--just one--who has ever said that.
What Mark means is that advertisers consistently tell him they want to better target their audience.
Mark must think we are all stupid. But Mark must be the stupid one--stupid to think anyone can read a statement like that without laughing in disbelief and derision.
6
It would be more helpful if you really sort out your reason rather than spending your time writing a parody that most people, including the less informed can do.
3
Could have been a funny set up, but you sabotaged yourself. Why do you think he would hire you to diss his company?
(Too much hype here: I thought Ms. Swisher was going to help educate about the tech industry, and provide insight to people. She merely mocks, while pretending to be an insider. Perhaps if I hadn't come in thinking it wasn't a humor column, that she really was going to "explain" Mark Z's thinking, I'd be less disappointed? 2 stars for trying so hard here, but again: you would not be hired for teh writing job, on merit. Negativity posing as ambitious humor, but ultimately empty...)
3
Hilarious, a cogent knife through obfuscatory butter. Now if only the lesson that “free ain’t free” could permeate the rest of our politics.
3
I am so,glad you and Mark Zuckerberg had that colloquy.It was a great contrast between corporate speak and user speak. you made so much sense- he should hire you to do PR for him!!!
2
Kara, you've got this. O.K., let me clarify: “awkberg” collected and exploited for economic gain, you guessed it – “a more open and connected world”, ultimately disrupting the social or economic structures upon which we all rely. Never stop writing about this. Zuckerberg appears to be either blind to this reality or simply OK with a certain level of social and cultural collateral damage in pursuit of his open and connected technological vision.
2
You make an amazing parody of one's self aggrandizing. I would tweak the words a little bit further, if I may.
Hello world. Mark here.
I want to take a moment to talk to the billion+ customers of our product, and to the rest of you. I started this company to achieve something incredible and along the way have amassed a fortune incomprehensible to all of you.
You gave me this.
I still wish to run the company and take it in a new direction that is truly open and transparent. I will use ads, I will use all information that is gleaned from our users in an open and transparent manner. However, going forward I am going to make two (2) very important decisions.
1. To have this much wealth for any one person or family is obscene on so many levels, and I am going to set up a trust that will fight global poverty, disease and offer education to those in the 3rd world. I will be giving away 99% of my fortune.
2. I am going to make it my life's mission now to lobby our governments and all governments around the world to change. I want people to have more access to each other, but in a way that is safe and transparent.
I apologize for any and all mistakes, but I am correcting them in a timely fashion that will more than make up for them.
Sincerely, Mark >
1
Thanks, Kara, for the best laugh I’ve had with an Opinion piece in ages!
3
Facebook and its owner and CEO Mark Zuckerberg have a lot to answer for and as the company tries to unscramble some of the eggs it has offered the public, it deserves a certain amount of criticism.
But dare I say it, Kara Swisher is simply snide and her comments off-target and often meaningless.
1
Why does everything in the whole world revolve around selling stuff that most of us don't need. When government workers must go to food banks after missing one pay check it is evidence that something is drastically wrong. Mark Zuckerberg is the snake oil salesman of the present and we keep buying his product and it's all for FREE!
5
Great article. Their slogan was "move fast, break things" and they helped to break our democracy, our country, and the world.
People used to hate energy companies and now Facebook and Zuckerberg are at the top of the list. He totally doesn't get it. Sharing photos is not worth the damage they have done.
7
I deactivated my Facebook page about 6 weeks ago. I'm glad Idid. I still can connect with people. Facebook took up too much of my time. Plus Zuckerberg comes across to me as having no responsibilities in all the controversies surrounding FB.
Grow up.
8
I always thought Facebook was free because the venture capitalists who initially funded it understood that not many people would use it if it wasn't free. And if it not that many people used it, then they couldn't sell advertising, which is the real reason Facebook exists.
2
Thank you for your translation. I read the original piece in the WSJ and found it filled with corporate-speak. Putting the paper down, I couldn't remember anything I had just read.
This translation, however, was honest and memorable. I read multiple sources for my news, and I find NYT > WSJ.
9
That is all very well true, but I do not see Mark Zuckerberg changing anything anytime soon. So I left Facebook. And it turned out I can live very well without it and still connect to "friends, family and community". Imagine that.
But as I see Mrs. Swisher is still on Facebook. So as long as people rage against FB but still use it, Mr. Zuckerberg does not have an incentive to change. Anything. At all. And will continue to do business as usual.
10
@Audrey “Mrs.” Swisher???? How quaint but I wonder what her wife Megan Smith would say to that....
It is unbelievable to me that, rather than showing some humility and saying something like "I was barely an adult when I started the company and made some boo-boos along the way", he is making himself sound like if it weren't for him, the world would suck and nobody would have a job. Spanish gardeners wouldn't have a voice either!
6
Great piece. Sharp and true. Please explain why Facebook users don't understand or care how creepy and exploitative it is?
10
More trash from media who simply hate Facebook for essentially eating their lunch. Akin to taxi companies hating Uber for appealing to the masses in a way they refused to imagine. Articles such as this are a further manifestation of the fear of that which they do not understand. People need to be responsible for themselves and what they believe. period. Fake news, Russia, etc etc... But mainstream media would have you believe that they are the purveyors of truth. This is simply not so and never has been. There has always been a bias in one direction or the other - that's what sells news! But now, the media is angry that there is another outlet beyond them where news (real or fake) can be published. At the end of the day, the so-called "privacy breaches" of Facebook pale in comparison to what credit rating companies do with your data without your permission -- they are allowed to essentially ruin people's lives when no one ever asked them to do what they do, much less give them permission. Facebook serves ads based on perceived preferences from information and actions provided by the people who use the platform. That's pretty much it. I wish TV could do this so I wouldn't have to suffer through ads for things I could not care less about. Facebook may be a waste of time, it may be a fad, but it's far from the evil imagined in the minds of media and the government.
6
Please translate this:
"You can delete your account at any time." - Facebook terms and conditions.
What puzzles me most about people who complain about Facebook is that they fail to recognize the voluntary nature of participation in and use of the service. Don't act like a nonplayable character.
9
@Edward Facebook keeps data on everyone. If you don't have an account, they still profile you.
2
Too right, the distance between “Mark’s Facts” (and who wouldn’t interpret his title that way based on what we know of his moral and ethical standards of behavior) and “The Facts” is very large, indeed.
1
There is no question Facebook has more than a few followers. But nothing is 'gratis', as your personal information is a mining gold, not to be wasted, as greed demands it's 'rightful' place in history. Whoever doesn't like it may get out of circulation...if it's addiction allows. Mark, can you show us an alternative to the 'put up or shut up' philosophy?
You make an amazing parody of one's self aggrandizing. I would tweak the words a little bit further, if I may.
Hello world. Mark here.
I want to take a moment to talk to the billion+ customers of our product, and to the rest of you. I started this company to achieve something incredible and along the way have amassed a fortune incomprehensible to all of you.
You gave me this.
I still wish to run the company and take it in a new direction that is truly open and transparent. I will use ads, I will use all information that is gleaned from our users in an open and transparent manner. However, going forward I am going to make two (2) very important decisions.
1. To have this much wealth for any one person or family is obscene on so many levels, and I am going to set up a trust that will fight global poverty, disease and offer education to those in the 3rd world. I will be giving away 99% of my fortune.
2. I am going to make it my life's mission now to lobby our governments and all governments around the world to change. I want people to have more access to each other, but in a way that is safe and transparent.
I apologize for any and all mistakes, but I am correcting them in a timely fashion that will more than make up for them.
Sincerely, Mark.
8
You make an amazing parody of one's self aggrandizing. I would tweak the words a little bit further, if I may.
Hello world. Mark here.
I want to take a moment to talk to the billion+ customers of our product, and to the rest of you. I started this company to achieve something incredible and along the way have amassed a fortune incomprehensible to all of you.
You gave me this.
I still wish to run the company and take it in a new direction that is truly open and transparent. I will use ads, I will use all information that is gleaned from our users in an open and transparent manner. However, going forward I am going to make two (2) very important decisions .
1. To have this much wealth for any one person or family is obscene on so many levels, and I am going to set up a trust that will fight global poverty, disease and offer education to those in the 3rd world. I will be giving away 99% of my fortune.
2. I am going to make it my life's mission now to lobby our governments and all governments around the world to change. I want people to have more access to each other, but in a way that is safe and transparent.
I apologize for any and all mistakes, but I am correcting them in a timely fashion that will more than make up for them.
Sincerely, Mark.
3
If fb could make more money with a subscription model, they would offer some sort of subscription model; tiered pricing, flat fees, whatever. Mark said it right in the op-ed; they "connect people" to keep them engaged so they will keep coming back to fb. That way they can be tracked across the entire consumer space---they might not "sell" data, but they certainly buy it (in meat- and cyber-space), combine it with fingerprinting, IP address and cookie tracking and all the rest to build a massive dataset to predict consumer behavior. Selling targeted ads is just one of the ways they monetize (but not "sell") their datasets. A more honest description of their core business is "using aggregated datasets of human behaviors to manipulate human behavior for profit". Selling ads is just one facet.
I live in the EU: most people "opted in" following the enactment of the GDPR because that was the big, blue, clearly-visible box surrounded by innocuous-sounding, over-simplified explanations of what GDPR is. To opt out, you had to scroll to the bottom and find the 7 pt light-grey-on-white text. Anyone sophisticated enough to figure that out already deleted their fb account. They are in the processing of being sued by several consumer rights groups across the EU. Sure, you can "download your data" as disorganized dump of everything you've ever put in it---fb complies with the GDPR with the contempt of a teenager forced to clean their room before they can use their phone again.
2
Kara is a treasure. I am so grateful she writes a column for the Times to tell your readers some truth behind Silly Valley. I laughed. I cried. Zuck and Cheryl play the smallest violin to deflect criticisms of their unsafe platform: don't blame us, blame our users. It's like they built a road network in a city without stoplights, stop signs or lane markers and then blame drivers for crashing into one another.
11
i think this column overestimates mark tremendously, he's a coder who wants to be rich. hes not interested in the humanities, politics, history, or even other people. his profoundly awkward and ill advised american tour in 2015 or so was pretty evident of it. However, on the board, he has many savvy political operatives. Susan Sanberg worked for the Clintons, Jeff Kaplan worked for the Bushes. And then you have dark enlightenment blood harvesting super villain peter theil who everyone forgets is on facebook's board, just like he likes it. this company is only interested in making money, believes its practically their divine right to do so and is in no way interested on changing any part of this.
10
If all he wanted was to be rich, he’d sell out and retire. These people want influence, respect if not adoration, and a legacy. @Concerned Citizen
2
Just like the Super Bowl, I only watch for the “relevant ads”.
2
Kara, thanks for calling Mark Zuckerberg out on this.
We really must stop letting him get away with this "we won't ever sell your private information" byline.
It's actually far worse. Facebook owns data that profiles us in ways we can barely imagine. It cross-links this data to create marketing profiles of great depth and precision.
Facebook sells access to those profiles to anyone who can pay.
Facebook then provides a technical, content-rich and emotionally manipulative gateway that psychologically targets us in ways that we also cannot imagine.
Why would Facebook ever sell that power to anyone when it can rent access to we "precision targeted demographics” - read you and me - over and over again.
7
Quintessential Kara Swisher: on point and great to read. And I’ve just put “fix all that I’ll lose when I delete fb” to the top of my to do list.
1
I love this. Well done! "Billions of people get to stay connected to those they care about and to express themselves."
What a joke.
Stay connected to what? Our laptops and phones? A site that sells our data?
FB has trivialized relationships into a 'like' button and pseudo friends list, fueled hate speech and actions, facilitated false advertising from foreign enemies, and worst of all, has perpetuated false ideals for how we should live our lives and socially interact.
Bring on the social media backlash. I hope it washes this company out of existence.
11
It's true that Facebook committed blunders that they should answer for. But the "paraphrasing" in this article is condescending and unfair. It seems to scorn Facebook for making money through advertising. Hey, it's a business. Mark Zuckerberg never claimed to run a non-profit. Again, not defending the missteps, but I find if hard to be convinced he's the greedy soulless Machiavellian this article makes him out to be.
Apple says it tries not to get into a market unless it can change things in a positive way.
So Apple, do your own Facebook, include a way to cheaply or for free set up a personal website, make privacy on it a cause, and you will be doing the work of the angels.
Hugh
8
After the Cambridge Analytica breech, election manipulation by Russia, and the admission that FB has sold users and friends' data to over 200 companies, I'd like something more than PR/op-eds. Facebook should be regulated like a utility. Hopefully UK/EU efforts will help guide the US in establishing reasonable accountability.
28
I deleted my FB account 2 years ago, it was like finding back to myself and my real friends. Life became good again.
14
Mark Zuckerberg doesn't get what's wrong with facebook.
It connects people. It sets up in-groups.
But what people really need is to learn to think for themselves.
For example, in politics, they need to get past oversimplified solutions, like "open borders" or "build the wall."
They need to be encouraged to grapple with the complexity of problems.
Thus facebook should make it harder to just like other people's content. The emphasis should be on original content. On original expression of thoughts.
People make the mistake of believing that somebody else is better at thinking. For example, movie stars. So they adopt heroes and copy what the heroes say and spread them to the rest of their in-group.
The best part of facebook is the pictures of the children, of animals, of nature. And the essays that individuals facebook users actually write themselves.
In a sense Facebook encapsulated why democracy is failing.
In the America of 100 years ago, problems were local and simple. People thought about these problems hard and found solutions.
Now people don't think. They copy. They join a group.
Groups are often wrong.
20
Last week I deleted my Facebook account. This past week has been great! I am no longer wasting time on Facebook. I spend more time reading news, reading books, and actually connecting with my friends and family.
Its been an awesome week. I wish I quit it sooner. I'll never go back. Facebook, you are not making any money off of me!
218
You are in control of what you allow people to do and see on facebook so change your settings if you don't think you have enough privacy. Facebook is a tool that can be very useful if you're the one calling the shots. Privacy isn't an issue if you don't give out too much information and don't list your phone number. Most people have security that also covers social media apps.
19
@CK unless FB truly is transparent about its algorithms you are _not_ in control.
Making people believe they have control is FB’s biggest scam.
FB is just selling your attention to advertisers. You are giving your time to FB and they make money off of it.
19
Facebook is still relevant in this modern day and age. Membership speaks for itself - networking never goes out of fashion.
12
@CK Alcoholism is relevant as well ... killing "pain" never goes out of fashion.
Just because people choose to live that way does not imply passive acceptance or active endorsement are the only remedies.
20
Clearly Mr Zuckerberg is on a path to world domination. I ghosted my facebook account and now see no choice but to drop Instagram and WhatsApp. There's always a better alternative.
91
"the media is irked when he says nothing and even more bothered when he says something, so he cannot win whatever he does." No. If and when Mr. Zuckerberg stops acting arrogantly and admits that he screwed up big time, I will not be irked. Facebook wants to connect people to extract money from the connections. Mr. Zuckerberg may be a genius. But he is greedy and just plain evil. How is gathering data on people different from someone who peeps into my house through the window to gather information about my personal life?
23
I think I speak for billions when I say we miss the Winklevoss twins.
32
I think I speak for billions when I say we miss the Winklevoss twins.
5
Epic annotations. Pure gold. I am even more satisfied that I deleted my account last summer.
24
A proposed edit to the first point - I started Facebook after stealing the idea from the project I was paid to work on - hey, how else could I make lots of money from my own work? Since then I learned to cheat first, then count on people forgetting what I did by repeatedly lying and obsfucating, so I can keep making oodles of money off other people. Why should I change my ways ?
65
If everyone ignores the advertisements then you'd think that businesses would realise that they're a waste of money! Go figure! I did see a headline in NZ news that said he's going to combine Facebook, Instagram and some other app. Facebook is good for getting local information - there's nothing old hat about that. It's called networking. Facebook with conditions attached for me; I can live without the other two attention deficit apps.
I deleted both Facebook and Instagram a few weeks ago and Zucky's op ed reinforced why. One man is controlling far, far too much data and it is an unsafe, unfair ecosystem I no longer wish to be a part of. Delete Facebook.
42
Great job. Too bad our elected officials don’t get it.
6
Pretty sharp satire for our time. Swisher even gets the twitter-speak right, so let it be said that she knows her beat.
24
I cannot see why Ms. Swisher wants to be ghost writer to a Harvard sophomore drop-out and, furthermore, she reinterprets his or his ghost writers' words on this page.
Facebook, Twitter, and similar platforms have become "the ghosts that one invoked, but cannot be rid off", as in the words of Goethe's "Sorcerer's Apprentice".
1
@Tuvw Xyz
I can see why. The word is satire. And thank God for it. It may seem we can't get rid of those Ghosts, but we must try or perish. Satire is one way to try. Abstinence is an other. Hopefully, Tuvw Xyz, you are not still on Facebook?
1
Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook might change course history 2016 election just make buck , there no control from FCC to let company Rogue.
Let campaign sales help Donald Trump help Win election and include lying to Congress.
4
Probably be a good idea of having the government to run a test of shutting down Facebook one day a week. Facebook currently does not serve a benefit for society. So try to allow it to only exist 6 days a week. There is no downside to this strategy. Many may complain but they will only get stronger internally blah giving it up one day a week. The same is true for Google. Children under the age of 18 should only be allowed to use Facebook one day a week. It is time for very strict restrictions. Zuckerberg stole the idea for Facebook while at Harvard. Trump would not have gotten elected without it. Close it down on Sundays. If successful close it down Wednesday and Sunday.
6
Except that would blatantly violate the first amendment protection against governmental interference with free speech.
1
Kara Swisher nailed it in this satirical piece. All Zuckerberg's self-serving "explanations" boil down to a simple truth: Facebook is a profit maximizing enterprise and your personal data fuel those outsized profits. Their main concern is: How can we convince you to keep giving up this valuable info?
Wonder what FB will look like in 2025?
49
@FromSiliconValleytoPiedmont
Last year when the news stories about Facebook started rolling in, the headline that ran on one TV network was "Facebook: You for Sale". That says it all.
3
I used to think Mark Zuckerberg was a real person. But now I know the truth - he's a hologram, with a PR flack behind the curtain providing emotionless commentary. Holograms don't need a conscience, food, or sleep. They are free to 'enhance' shareholder value 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They don't laugh, cry, or have regrets. I suspect there are other hologram CEOs in silicon valley. Don't look too closely at Google.
66
@markymark As a SW engineer for thirty years, I believe I have some insight into MZ's thinking in that he believes code can and will solve all problems. It is no wonder to me, with all the current societal pressures on FB, MZ's response is to embark instead on a technical undertaking to bind his WhatApp/FB/IG domains more tightly together. It's a SW duck to water; when in doubt, CODE!
MZ is too oblivious to be a dependable pathfinder. (I bet the code is great though!!) He relies on Sandberg for that, which makes for a perfect digital-age combo: a nerd and a shark. IMO, the one with the most blood on their hands is Sandberg - by far - and when MZ feels sharp teeth nipping at his backside, it is are
- as the adage goes - her that turned round.
4
Early interviews with Mark about what he actually thought about creating Facebook at that time are a lot more relevant than anything he has said since then. This whole uniting the world thing is an after thought he thinks people want to hear. Frontline recently did a two part documentary on Facebook. I can't recommend it enough.
63
@Stephen, One of the best parts of that Frontline doc was when Kara put MZ in the hot seat and grilled him.
5
Good piece. Ms Swisher compares fb to SF as an unwieldy city that can't keep up with the services it should be providing its residents. In SF, I see city workers everyday doing major infrastructure improvements--generally repairs or replacement of old infrastructure. SF is a rich city with many visitors who pay taxes and fees (some exorbitant like parking); it is a regional central city, an air transport hub, and now a tech center (one google office routes traffic on their network for the entire world). The things she accuses fb of not being good at are not apparent in SF, with the exception of homelessness, which is being tackled in a major way, and even here it might be considered an embarrassment of riches as housing costs have soared in the bay area, and SF may be a magnet for the homeless services already offered.
By contrast, in Oakland, it is a major event when a street is repaved. The Times might investigate: How two major cities, side by side, can have such different levels of services (Oakland also has a huge tax base, both cities take parks seriously); When is taxes and fees from visitors taxation without representation; and what a regional or national program would like to combat homelessness. On the latter slack during the year at the Post Office could be directed to services for the homeless through the sale of Christmas stamps. Shelters, blankets, and showers.
Fb targeting is like taxation w/o representation. Give us a big button not to share any data.
3
I have started clicking on the "Hide ad" button on every ad. Then when Facebook asks my why I did so, I click on the "Already purchased" button. I never see the ad again. After a few days of doing this I'm seeing random ads for stuff I don't care at all about. I continue clicking on hide and say I already bought that stuff also. If we all do this can we ruin Facebook's profiles of ourselves and reclaim some measure of privacy? Hide ad is under the three dots at the top right corner of each ad. It certainly feels less creepy that way.
72
@ws Or just quit using it if your intention is to work so hard to defeat their model and try to give you something that would interest you.
6
The corruption of mining data from ads aside, does facebook actually connect people? There are 3 basic types of posts: look at me, look at something I have, or a cry for help. I'm not sure this makes the world a better place.
122
@Ira FaceBook has been invaluable for connecting me to coworkers and friend from my distant past. But only -- to your point -- because I tolerate the relentless self-branding.
3
So the bottom line is that Facebook is nothing but one endless advertisement platform trying to sell me something I don’t want, only I don’t have to pay for it? Why with cable TV and endless channels of mindless programs with incessant commercials, which I do pay for, would I need that?
9
Would somebody please explain to me why we could not have a public utility do exactly the same thing? Or a non-profit charging each user...what, a buck a month?
78
@Daniel Smith Only a small number of people will cough up any money at all for a subscription. Facebook has billions of users...I don't know the numbers, but if it was a few dollars a month(not $1, which won't be enough), that would be cut by 90% or something, negating the value of it completely because you couldn't reach enough people. The consumer has spoken here and wants it the way it is, with some tweaks.
1
Put simply, I just don't believe that consumers have told Facebook that they want more targeted adds. I suspect that is just an outright lie.
More importantly, I don't believe that Facebook looks at its users as its core customers, with the advertisers existing simply as a fuel-source for the enterprise. Rather, the users are the commodity that are sold to the advertisers, who are the real customer-base that Facebook caters too.
133
All the geek speak in the world doesn't change the fact that Facebook's collection of data under the "personalization" guise will allow it to market information, e.g., recommending whether you (or the group to which you've been assigned) is more or less likely to make a purchase if you are sent regular promos, or during certain time periods, etc., etc. Such algorism based activities are easily obtained from the data Facebook collects. Users are essentially required to be customer research subjects. Google has taken this a step further and tried to require people to indicate why they don't want to see a particular ad.
8
Facebook has transformed our world, socially, economically, and culturally. To be sure, Facebook has made major errors. However, companies in the vanguard of technological and cultural change are bound to face novel dilemmas. Facebook needs to soberly contemplate and address these issues. That said, this article myopically suggests that Zuckerberg is some sort of avaricious baron who is indifferent to the effects of Facebook's influence on the world. Facebook is Zuckerberg's baby; it's his legacy. The fate of Facebook will define him in the history books. It's in his best interest to make things right, and his recent acts suggest he will.
19
@Cody
Mark needs to walk. I think its in his interest for him, to split Facebook back into its 3 -4 constituents and hire competent people and let them be regulated as professionally managed businesses. There is a high probability there will be antitrust action against Facebook otherwise in US or outside.
9
@Cody
Well, so many things have transformed our (digital) world...
Internet, IRC, mails, google seach engine, open source licences, linux on servers, node.js, PAAS, smartphone for all, etc... And also Facebook. However without Facebook, an other solution could have made the difference, as a MySpace-like concurrent.
1
@Cody You state, "That said, this article myopically suggests that Zuckerberg is some sort of avaricious baron who is indifferent to the effects of Facebook's influence on the world."
Replace "myopically suggests" with "affirms the obvious:" and you have a true sentence.
2
We live in a subscription world (hulu, netflix, NYT, Adobe, etc, etc). If people could pay $1-5 and NOT see ads and NOT have their private info used against them, I am sure they would be fine paying that. Everyone paying $1 would already mean a few billions in the bank, if the amount of users you are talking about are active users.
65
@Jonathan Historically, no, the numbers of people who will pay are very small. NYT and WSJ et al would not exist without targeted advertising, nor would most of television. We now have ad-free TV, though it took 50 years to get to it, and my cable bill is $220 a month so not a trivial amount to get some ad-free content.
I pay to read the NYTimes and they still show me ads.
18
It puzzles me, or maybe it's just the hypocrisy of it, why folks like Kara Swisher and Roger McNamee are so haughty in criticizing the businesses that created their own careers. They and their best friends made their money in Silicon Valley powered by business that thrived via advertising and all manner of addressing narrowly targeted consumers. These consumers were separated into corrals based on their interests and behaviors. No need to name them all, but some of there were, oh, Amazon and Google and Yahoo. Now Kara is indignant, as if she walked 2 feet off the ground while Silicon Valley was being built under her, so her feet did not have to touch the dirty business below.
90
@Kim great points, and it should be noted that Swisher's Recode uses a Facebook pixel to track the behaviors of their visitors.
31
@Kim
Not sure why you're puzzled. Kara Swisher writes about technology because that's what she knows better than most because of her long involvement in that world. She isn't a reporter focused on who, what, why and where but a contributing opinion writer who has insight, views, history and a community of people she knows and who know her that work in Tech.
Paul Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist who frequently criticizes economics. Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker is a lawyer and writes critically about the legal system. I'm not sure how Swisher is different.
If a crime reporter covers serial murderers and disparages them, is he wrong because serial murderers is how he earns his paycheck?
I also don't get how Swisher is biting the hands that once fed her. If she worked in Silicon Valley it's a broad brush to hold her personally responsible for tech business models that shred privacy and are anti-democratic. Particularly, as you point out, she often writes derisively about the tech sector.
Giant tech firms employ an army of communications managers, pr handlers, social media specialists to get their message and image out there. Swisher is among a few who take on the big icon companies without gushing. The risk of alienating the tech powers is real. Swisher so far hasn't disappointed.
49
@Kim Kara Swisher can't bite the hand that feeds her, so her criticism of Silicon Valley is always soft and careful. Especially since she's traded rooting for Silicon Valley to pearl clutching now that ReCode headliners' and heroes' actions were revealed as indefensible. She is too closely identified and chummy with her subjects these days (I suppose that's due to pressure of having to "brand" one's self as a tech personality) and she seems to have a peculiarly maternal, protective vibe about Zuckerberg. Great tech journalism has become thin on the ground. There's much muckraking to do in the tech world these days, but much of what has passed for tech journalism in the last 15 years has been billionaire hero worship puff pieces (Elon! Zuck! Sheryl! Jeff! etc!) and tech promises that never materialize (VR! Automated cars!)--and the snuffling at the trough of VC schmoozeathons. Kara Swisher had a front seat in the Valley, but she either didn't or refused to see what was in plain sight: an emerging system of control being run by an immature self-obsessed monoculture. That fail is what makes this letter "translation" all the more lame.
5
Thanks, Ms. Swisher
Sometime I wonder what would happen if Facebook, Google, and other-free-but-not-without-costs services offered a subscription that came with a guarantee that none of your data would be collected.
What would such a subscription cost?
Would people be willing to budget $500-$1000/ year to preserve their privacy?
Would people demand that FB et al pay them for the privilege of advertising to them?
Would these businesses collapse without all this “free food”?
13
@sally No, of course they won't pay. It's the same as when your doctor says you need a test, and you say fine. Then he says it's not covered by insurance, and most people say "oh, never mind." Just look at the tremendous difficulty publications like NYT and WSJ and WaPo have getting people to fork over even $8 a month, if they can get SOME of the content free.
5
More succinct translation: FB started as a way to identify potential campus hook-up partners, then morphed into a data mining operation when they discovered that in exchange for a "free" social media platform, users would reveal all sorts of information about themselves that could be analyzed and sold to all sorts of marketers, political operations, and who knows whom else.
219
@Pat, so it went from date mining to data mining.
18
@Pat
FB needs to go to the chopping block next.....
3
This is absolute pure GOLD! The translation is perfect!
105
@Tony: I concur. Kara Swisher, you rule. Keep it coming!
3
@Tony
Also, my highest regard for Ms. Kara and her on-point comments and interviews. SHE is pure gold!
3