Mark Zuckerberg’s Latest Defense of Facebook Doesn’t Make Any Sense

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg launched a brand new assertion defending his firm late Tuesday within the wake of U.S. Senate testimony from whistleblower Frances Haugen. And whereas evaluating Facebook within the 2020s to Big Tobacco within the Nineteen Nineties isn’t new, it truly is putting to see Zuck make the identical arguments that corporations like Philip Morris and R. J. Reynolds have been making within the Nineteen Nineties—arguments that don’t make a lot sense in hindsight.

Fundamentally, Haugen argues that Facebook has chosen earnings over the well-being of its customers, and he or she stole tens of hundreds of secret inside paperwork to show it. Haugen instructed a Senate subcommittee on Tuesday that the buck stops with Zuck and that he might make the product higher for humanity and safer for youths if he actually wished to.

Zuck insists the whistleblower’s testimony is “illogical” and that the “good work” of Facebook has been “mischaracterized.” The billionaire says that the corporate delivers a top quality expertise, which is why “billions of people love our products.” Obviously, billions of individuals cherished and proceed to like smoking tobacco. But it doesn’t imply it’s good for them.

Big Tobacco corporations carried out inside analysis and knew that cigarettes have been dangerous as early as the 1950s. But they continued to insist in public, properly into the Nineteen Nineties that nicotine was protected and never addictive. The CEOs of the key tobacco corporations even mentioned as a lot in 1994 when testifying to Congress when Ron Wyden made them go down the road and say whether or not they thought nicotine was addictive. They all mentioned nicotine was not addictive, a blatant lie.

“At the heart of these accusations is this idea that we prioritize profit over safety and well-being. That’s just not true,” Zuckerberg says in his new assertion.

How might Facebook care extra about earnings that the well-being of its customers? If its customers are depressing, they’ll theoretically cease utilizing the product. Unless, in fact, they’re addicted. The argument is similar to what tobacco corporations have been saying within the Nineteen Nineties. And the answer to a dwindling buyer base is similar for Facebook because it was for the Big Tobacco within the twentieth century: You must hook a youthful and youthful viewers.

We aren’t going to repeat Zuck’s complete assertion just because it’s too lengthy and boring. You’re free to learn the whole thing on Facebook if that’s your cup of tea. But we’ve pulled out just a few of essentially the most attention-grabbing nuggets under, not as a result of they’re noteworthy in isolation, however as a result of they echo Big Tobacco’s technique from the previous.

We care about analysis.

Zuckerberg:

If we wished to disregard analysis, why would we create an industry-leading analysis program to know these necessary points within the first place? If we didn’t care about preventing dangerous content material, then why would we make use of so many extra folks devoted to this than some other firm in our area — even ones bigger than us?

You know who else had an infinite analysis program? Big Tobacco. When the tobacco corporations held a secret assembly in New York on December 14, 1953 to debate the newest analysis about how harmful smoking was, they agreed to usher in scientists to insist that cigarettes weren’t carcinogenic.

The tobacco {industry} employed scientists within the twentieth century who not solely mentioned that smoking was protected, they mentioned it wasn’t addictive. Why would Big Tobacco rent so many scientists and researchers? Because they care about delivering a helpful product to their clients, simply as Facebook does.

What about all the opposite issues which can be harming folks?

Zuckerberg:

If we wished to cover our outcomes, why would we have now established an industry-leading normal for transparency and reporting on what we’re doing? And if social media have been as chargeable for polarizing society as some folks declare, then why are we seeing polarization improve within the US whereas it stays flat or declines in lots of nations with simply as heavy use of social media around the globe?

Zuckerberg is arguing that Facebook can’t be accountable for polarization as a result of different nations outdoors the U.S. don’t expertise the identical polarization. We haven’t seen this explicit research, however assuming that it exists, this tactic is similar to 1 deployed by the tobacco {industry}.

Other diseases apart from lung most cancers typically kill people who smoke, in accordance with the tobacco companies of the twentieth century. What about these illnesses? Why don’t you deal with all of these different elements that may kill an individual? Or, on this case, why don’t you deal with all the opposite causes for polarization within the U.S. apart from Facebook?

Tampering with the product.

One of the large scandals the tobacco {industry} confronted within the Nineteen Nineties was over the quantity of tampering they did to their merchandise. The central situation was whether or not Big Tobacco was manipulating the quantity of nicotine and different chemical compounds to be able to make their merchandise extra addictive.

Zuckerberg:

For instance, one transfer that has been referred to as into query is after we launched the Meaningful Social Interactions change to News Feed. This change confirmed fewer viral movies and extra content material from family and friends — which we did figuring out it could imply folks spent much less time on Facebook, however that analysis prompt it was the appropriate factor for folks’s well-being. Is that one thing an organization centered on earnings over folks would do?

This stands out as the weirdest declare in Zuck’s newest publish. He’s principally admitting that he has an enormous dial at his desk that may make customers much less offended and fewer engaged, which harms Facebook’s earnings. And that’s roughly what the whistleblower has argued all alongside. It was additionally true of the tobacco {industry}, regardless of lots of protest on the contrary when testifying to Congress.

The former CEO of R.J. Reynolds, James Johnston, testified in April of 1994 which you could’t actually name cigarettes addictive as a result of so many individuals have give up smoking:

If cigarettes have been addictive, might virtually 43 million Americans have give up smoking, virtually all of them on their very own, with none outdoors assist? The solutions are apparent and that’s exactly my level.

Today, even the Big Tobacco corporations admit that smoking is each addictive and dangerous to public well being. But as lately as 1994, they have been singing one other tune.

We need what’s finest for you.

Zuckerberg:

The argument that we intentionally push content material that makes folks offended for revenue is deeply illogical. We become profitable from adverts, and advertisers persistently inform us they don’t need their adverts subsequent to dangerous or offended content material. And I don’t know any tech firm that units out to construct merchandise that make folks offended or depressed. The ethical, enterprise and product incentives all level in the other way.

Deeply illogical? Zuckerberg principally admitted that he can push content material that makes folks offended anytime he needs. Maybe he ought to again and browse his final two paragraphs once more, particularly that half the place he mentioned, “we did knowing it would mean people spent less time on Facebook, but that research suggested it was the right thing for people’s well-being.”

Regulate us, please

Zuckerberg:

Similar to balancing different social points, I don’t imagine personal corporations ought to make the entire choices on their very own. That’s why we have now advocated for up to date web laws for a number of years now. I’ve testified in Congress a number of occasions and requested them to replace these laws. I’ve written op-eds outlining the areas of regulation we expect are most necessary associated to elections, dangerous content material, privateness, and competitors.

Facebook is arguably the Philip Morris of Big Tech, the most important participant within the recreation. Facebook is asking for Congress to manage Big Tech, simply as Philip Morris finally requested for regulation of Big Tobacco. Why would the largest firm within the social media enterprise do such a factor? When you’re the most important participant, regulation tends that can assist you keep your dominant place, particularly you probably have a deep bench of lobbyists who will help be certain that the laws is basically toothless. And, boy, does Facebook have lobbyists.

No one is aware of what the long run holds for Facebook, an organization that’s objectively made the planet a far worse place to dwell. But if the tobacco {industry} is any information, Facebook will most likely begin investing closely within the well being care {industry} in order that they become profitable on each inflicting the issue and promoting the treatment. Philip Morris lately purchased an organization that makes inhalers for asthmatics. Seriously.