An Ugly Truth

1. Facebook's Founding Ethos Prioritized Growth and Data Collection Above All Else

“Data is extremely powerful, and Mark saw that. What Mark ultimately wanted was power.”

Early focus on data. From its origins at Harvard, Facebook was designed to collect vast amounts of personal information, not just for connection but for potential future use. Zuckerberg's early interactions revealed a fascination with how much data users would willingly provide, viewing them as "dumb fucks" for trusting him with their details. This foundational drive for data acquisition was central to his vision.

Growth at all costs. Zuckerberg's primary objective was rapid expansion, aiming to connect every internet user in the world. This ambition led him to prioritize user acquisition and engagement above concerns like privacy or profitability in the early years, famously turning down a $1 billion offer from Yahoo to pursue global "domination." The culture encouraged engineers to "ship it" quickly, often without considering potential downsides.

Ignoring warnings. Despite early signs of privacy concerns, such as the backlash to FaceMash and the News Feed, Zuckerberg largely dismissed them. His focus remained on building a platform where users would share everything, believing that openness was becoming a "social norm" and that collecting more data was inherently good for understanding the world and building products.

2. The Zuckerberg-Sandberg Partnership Forged an Unstoppable, Data-Driven Business Model

“Sheryl has been my partner in running Facebook and has been central to our growth and success over the years.”

Complementary skills. The partnership between Mark Zuckerberg, the product visionary focused on growth, and Sheryl Sandberg, the seasoned executive with business and political acumen, was crucial to Facebook's transformation. Sandberg brought the organizational discipline and advertising expertise needed to monetize Zuckerberg's rapidly expanding user base, turning the platform into a profit powerhouse.

Scaling the business. Sandberg, drawing on her experience at Google, built Facebook's advertising business from the ground up, focusing on leveraging the platform's unique user data for targeted ads. She professionalized the company, hiring experienced staff and establishing departments like policy and communications, which Zuckerberg had previously neglected, despite his initial reluctance to fully invest in the business side.

Data as currency. Sandberg's model treated user data as a valuable asset, enabling advertisers to reach highly specific audiences based on demographics, interests, and behavior. This "surveillance capitalism" approach, while incredibly lucrative, fundamentally shaped the company's incentives, prioritizing data collection and engagement to fuel ad revenue, often at the expense of user privacy and well-being.

3. Early Privacy Lapses Were Systemic, Not Accidental, and Often Ignored

“There was nothing but the goodwill of the employees themselves to stop them from abusing their access to users’ private information.”

Unchecked internal access. Facebook's early systems granted thousands of employees broad access to users' private data, a practice rooted in Zuckerberg's desire for rapid product development. Despite dozens of employees being fired for abusing this access (e.g., looking up dates or tracking ex-partners), no systemic safeguards were implemented for years, highlighting a fundamental disregard for user privacy within the company's design.

Open Graph vulnerabilities. The introduction of Open Graph allowed third-party developers extensive access to user data and their friends' data, creating a massive, largely unchecked flow of personal information outside of Facebook. Warnings from internal staff about the potential for abuse and the creation of a data black market were dismissed by senior executives who prioritized growth and partnerships.

Regulatory blind spots. Despite a landmark FTC settlement in 2011 over deceptive privacy practices, Facebook continued to face scrutiny and complaints regarding its data handling. Regulators, however, often lacked the technical understanding or political will to effectively oversee the company, allowing practices like the Open Graph data sharing to continue largely unimpeded until major scandals erupted years later.

4. Facebook's Advertising Engine Thrived by Mining User Data to Create Demand

“If Google filled demand, then Facebook would create it.”

Targeted advertising model. Unlike Google, which used search queries to target users already looking to buy, Facebook aimed to influence users earlier in the "funnel" by leveraging its deep understanding of their lives and interests. This involved collecting vast amounts of data on user activity, connections, and demographics to enable highly personalized advertising campaigns.

Data collection beyond the site. Facebook's ad tools, such as Pixel and the Like button embedded on external websites, allowed the company to track users' browsing activity across the internet. This off-site tracking significantly expanded Facebook's data trove, providing advertisers with richer insights into consumer behavior and preferences, further cementing its dominance in the digital advertising market.

Prioritizing ad revenue. The success of the advertising business became the company's central focus, driving product decisions and resource allocation. Sandberg's team worked to convince major brands that Facebook was the most effective platform for building brand awareness and influencing consumer behavior, even if users weren't actively shopping, by turning personal data into a "cash cow."

5. Internal Dissent Over Harmful Content and Political Bias Was Suppressed

“We weren’t giving Black Lives Matter an audience with Mark, but we were giving that access to conservatives like Glenn Beck? It was such a bad decision.”

Employee frustration. As Facebook grew, employees became increasingly concerned about the platform's role in spreading misinformation, hate speech, and partisan content, particularly during the 2016 election cycle. Internal forums were filled with debates and questions directed at leadership about the company's responsibility and perceived political bias.

Accusations of bias. The "Trending Topics" controversy, where former workers alleged suppression of conservative news, fueled accusations of liberal bias from the right. Facebook's response, including meeting with conservative leaders, was seen by some employees as legitimizing figures known for spreading conspiracy theories and hate speech, while ignoring concerns raised by civil rights groups.

Suppression of dissent. Facebook's culture, particularly under the "rat catcher" unit, actively sought to identify and punish employees who leaked information to the press, using surveillance tools to monitor internal communications and activity. This created an environment of fear and discouraged employees from speaking out internally or externally about their concerns regarding the company's practices and impact.

6. Facebook's Security Team Uncovered Russian Interference but Faced Internal Resistance

“Disclosing that Russia had meddled in the U.S. elections served no purpose for Facebook, but it performed the civic duty of informing the public and potentially protecting other democracies from similar meddling.”

Early detection. Facebook's threat intelligence team, led by Alex Stamos, began detecting Russian state-linked activity targeting U.S. election figures as early as March 2016. They meticulously tracked hackers and disinformation campaigns, gathering evidence of unprecedented foreign interference on the platform.

Internal delays and suppression. Despite repeated reports from the security team, senior executives, including those reporting to Sandberg, were slow to grasp the severity of the Russian operation. Concerns were often dismissed or downplayed, and efforts to publicly disclose findings were resisted, with management prioritizing avoiding political controversy and potential government scrutiny over informing the public.

"Company over country" mindset. The decision to suppress or minimize the findings on Russian interference reflected a core tenet within Facebook: protecting the company's interests and growth trajectory was paramount. Disclosing foreign interference was seen as politically risky and potentially damaging to the business, leading to a delay in public acknowledgment and a watering down of internal reports.

7. The Cambridge Analytica Scandal Exposed Deep Flaws in Data Handling and Leadership Response

“The breach allowed the company to exploit the private social media activity of a huge swath of the American electorate, developing techniques that underpinned its work on President Trump’s campaign in 2016.”

Massive data breach. The Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed that a third-party academic had harvested data from up to 87 million Facebook users without their explicit consent, violating the platform's policies. This data was then used by a political consulting firm tied to the Trump campaign for targeted advertising, highlighting the dangerous consequences of Facebook's lax oversight of its developer ecosystem.

Delayed and inadequate response. Facebook learned about the data transfer in 2015 but failed to ensure the data was deleted, only taking significant action after news reports surfaced in 2018. The initial response from leadership was criticized as dismissive and focused on controlling the narrative rather than taking full responsibility for the systemic failures that allowed the breach.

Congressional scrutiny. The scandal triggered intense congressional hearings, forcing Zuckerberg to testify and defend the company's business model and data privacy practices. While Zuckerberg largely stuck to his talking points and avoided major missteps, the hearings exposed a significant knowledge gap among lawmakers regarding how Facebook operates, inadvertently shifting some public ire towards Washington.

8. Strategic Acquisitions Consolidated Power and Undermined Promises to Founders

“At the end of the day, I sold my company,” Acton said in an interview with Forbes. “I sold my users’ privacy to a larger benefit. I made a choice and a compromise. And I live with that every day.”

Eliminating competition. Facebook strategically acquired potential rivals like Instagram and WhatsApp, often before they posed a significant threat, to consolidate its dominance in the social media landscape. These deals, valued in the billions, were largely unchallenged by regulators who didn't foresee their future growth or integration into Facebook's core business.

Broken promises. Zuckerberg and Sandberg made promises to the founders of Instagram and WhatsApp to maintain their independence and protect user privacy, particularly regarding data integration and monetization. However, these promises were eventually broken as Facebook sought to integrate the apps more closely, share data, and introduce advertising, leading to the departures of the founders.

Antitrust concerns. The integration of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp into a single, interoperable system was seen by critics as a defensive move to make a potential breakup more difficult. Law professors and regulators began to argue that Facebook's history of acquisitions and efforts to stifle competitors constituted a monopoly, drawing parallels to historical trusts like Standard Oil.

9. Political Speech Policy Prioritized Engagement and Neutrality Over Fact-Checking

“We do not submit speech by politicians to our independent fact-checkers, and we generally allow it on the platform even when it would otherwise breach our normal content rules.”

"Newsworthiness" exemption. Facebook developed a policy that exempted political speech from its standard content rules, arguing that the public had a right to see politicians' unedited views. This policy, initially a reaction to Donald Trump's controversial posts, evolved to protect even demonstrably false or harmful statements from political figures, including paid advertisements.

Refusal to fact-check politicians. Despite employing third-party fact-checkers for regular content, Facebook explicitly refused to fact-check political ads or posts from politicians. This decision allowed campaigns, particularly the Trump campaign, to spread misinformation and lies through highly targeted ads, leveraging Facebook's tools to reach specific voter segments with tailored, often false, narratives.

Backlash and criticism. The policy drew widespread criticism from civil rights groups, academics, and lawmakers, who argued that it prioritized engagement and political neutrality over combating disinformation and protecting democratic integrity. Incidents like the doctored Nancy Pelosi video highlighted the dangers of allowing manipulated content to spread unchecked, even when its falsity was easily verifiable.

10. Real-World Harms, From Genocide to Riots, Highlighted the Platform's Dangerous Impact

“As far as the Myanmar situation is concerned, social media is Facebook, and Facebook is social media.”

Amplifying hate speech. In countries like Myanmar, where Facebook became the primary source of information, the platform's algorithms amplified hate speech and disinformation against minority groups, contributing to real-world violence and genocide. Despite repeated warnings from activists and experts, Facebook was slow to respond, lacking sufficient content moderators in local languages and prioritizing growth over safety.

Enabling extremist organization. Facebook's push for private groups, intended to foster community, inadvertently created spaces for extremist groups, militias, and conspiracy theorists to organize, recruit, and spread dangerous ideologies under a cloak of privacy. This made it harder for Facebook's security teams to detect and remove harmful content before it led to violence.

Capitol riot connection. The January 6th Capitol riot revealed how Facebook had been used by extremist groups to plan and coordinate their actions, including discussing logistics, weapons, and targets. While Facebook took some action to remove groups and ban individuals after the event, the incident underscored the platform's role in enabling the mobilization of individuals intent on violence and insurrection.

11. Zuckerberg Declared a "Wartime" Stance to Consolidate Control Amid Crises

“Up until now, I’ve been a peacetime leader. That’s going to change.”

Shift in leadership philosophy. Amid mounting scandals and public criticism, Zuckerberg declared a shift from a "peacetime" to a "wartime" CEO, consolidating control over various aspects of the company. This move, influenced by business literature, signaled an end to the relative autonomy previously enjoyed by some executives and departments.

Centralizing power. Zuckerberg began taking more direct control over product decisions, policy, and even public relations, previously areas where he had delegated heavily. This centralization was seen by some as necessary to navigate the crises, but by others as a move to tighten his grip on power and ensure all parts of the company aligned with his vision.

Executive departures. The shift in direction and leadership style contributed to the departures of key executives, including Chris Cox, Jan Koum, Kevin Systrom, and Alex Stamos. These departures, particularly those of founders like Koum and Systrom, highlighted disagreements over the company's direction, privacy policies, and the increasing integration of acquired apps.

12. Facing Existential Threats, Facebook Adopted Defensive Tactics While Profits Soared

“At the end of the day, if someone’s going to try to threaten something that existential, you go to the mat and you fight.”

Regulatory battles. Facing multiple antitrust investigations and calls for breakup from lawmakers and activists, Facebook deployed significant resources to fight government intervention. The company hired numerous lobbyists and legal teams, arguing that breaking up Facebook would harm users, weaken security, and hinder innovation, while also pointing to foreign competition as a greater threat.

Public image management. Facebook invested heavily in public relations, attempting to control narratives around scandals and highlight the platform's positive contributions. Zuckerberg and Sandberg engaged in public appearances and interviews, often sticking to carefully crafted talking points, though their efforts were frequently undermined by new controversies or internal leaks.

Prioritizing engagement and profit. Despite acknowledging harms and implementing some policy changes (often after public outcry), Facebook's core business model remained centered on maximizing user engagement and ad revenue. Internal experiments showed that prioritizing "good for the world" content could decrease user sessions, reinforcing the company's incentive to maintain algorithms that favored engagement, even if it meant amplifying divisive or harmful content.

Last updated: May 2, 2025