An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination [calibre 4.99.5]
- Автор: Frenkel Sheera, Kang Cecilia
- Год: 2021
- Язык: английский
- Год: HARPERCOLLINS
- ISBN: 9780062960672
- Жанр: Прочая деловая литература
Электронная книга - «An Ugly Truth: Inside Facebook's Battle for Domination [calibre 4.99.5]». Краткое содержание книги:
**Award-winning *New York Times* reporters Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang unveil the tech story of our times in a riveting, behind-the-scenes exposé that offers the definitive account of Facebook’s fall from grace**.
Once one of Silicon Valley’s greatest success stories, Facebook has been under constant fire for the past five years, roiled by controversies and crises. It turns out that while the tech giant was connecting the world, they were also mishandling users’ data, spreading fake news, and amplifying dangerous, polarizing hate speech.
The company, many said, had simply lost its way. But the truth is far more complex. Leadership decisions enabled, and then attempted to deflect attention from, the crises. Time after time, Facebook’s engineers were instructed to create tools that encouraged people to spend as much time on the platform as possible, even as those same tools boosted inflammatory rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and partisan filter bubbles. And while consumers and lawmakers focused their outrage on privacy breaches and misinformation, Facebook solidified its role as the world’s most voracious data-mining machine, posting record profits, and shoring up its dominance via aggressive lobbying efforts.
Drawing on their unrivaled sources, Sheera Frenkel and Cecilia Kang take readers inside the complex court politics, alliances and rivalries within the company to shine a light on the fatal cracks in the architecture of the tech behemoth. Their explosive, exclusive reporting led them to a shocking conclusion: The missteps of the last five years were not an anomaly but an inevitability—this is how Facebook was built to perform. In a period of great upheaval, growth has remained the one constant under the leadership of Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg. Both have been held up as archetypes of uniquely 21st century executives—he the tech “boy genius” turned billionaire, she the ultimate woman in business, an inspiration to millions through her books and speeches. But sealed off in tight circles of advisers and hobbled by their own ambition and hubris, each has stood by as their technology is coopted by hate-mongers, criminals and corrupt political regimes across the globe, with devastating consequences. In *An Ugly Truth* , they are at last held accountable.
**
Political speech, Facebook spokespeople confirmed later, included paid ads by candidates and their campaigns. Clegg was confirming for the first time that political ads weren’t fact-checked, which allowed politicians and their campaigns to pay to place lies on the site.
When Sandberg took the stage in Atlanta, the town hall audience was buzzing angrily about Clegg’s speech. The policy he had described two days earlier was dangerous and could usher in a wave of misinformation and lead to voter suppression, some people in attendance said. American history was rife with examples of how, since the late 1800s, U.S. government leaders used Jim Crow laws, literacy tests, and poll taxes to reduce African American votes. “My colleagues and I arrived prepared to discuss solutions—not to fight new and flagrantly harmful policies,” said Vanita Gupta, the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “We had traveled to Atlanta with confidence and left disturbed that the Facebook exemption would unravel our progress.”
The Facebook officials at the event tried to defuse anger, insisting that the policy wasn’t new and that the media were blowing Clegg’s speech out of proportion. “That was spin,” one civil rights leader said. “It was clear it was a new policy because we hadn’t heard it before.”
The timing couldn’t have been worse for Sandberg. When she took the stage, she acknowledged the crowd’s disappointment. “So, what I can’t give you right now is perfect answers,” she said, throwing her hands in the air. “We don’t have them.” But she wasn’t deserting them, she added. “What you have from me, today and always, is my commitment to stay personally engaged, to stay close to you, and to make sure, not just me, but my company is listening.”10
Color of Change’s Robinson had hired a crew of videographers to capture the Atlanta conference, which he intended to promote on his nonprofit’s site. The morning of the event, he called off the video plans. “At the end of the day, the message was that Facebook is about business, and this is the way Facebook does business,” he said.
To some civil rights leaders, Sandberg appeared blindsided by Clegg’s announcement. According to one person close to the COO who attended the event, Sandberg claimed that so much had been going on at the time that she might have missed the details, even if they had been flagged for her. But Facebook officials said Sandberg was aware of Clegg’s speech and that she agreed with the policy.
Within twenty-four hours of the Atlanta event, a grainy thirty-second attack ad against Democratic presidential candidate and former vice president Joseph Biden surfaced on Facebook. The ad, funded by a pro-Trump super PAC, started with a staticky video of Biden meeting with Ukrainian officials during his time in the Obama administration. “Joe Biden promised Ukraine $1 billion if they fired the prosecutor investigating his son’s company,” an ominous voiceover claimed; the video then cut to a Council on Foreign Relations event in which Mr. Biden referenced the sum. “But when President Trump asks Ukraine to investigate corruption, the Democrats want to impeach him,” it read, a misleading allusion to the president’s infamous July 25 phone call to newly elected Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump promised to release funds earmarked by Congress for Ukraine’s war with Russia if Zelensky opened an investigation of Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The Trump campaign was misconstruing the events. There was no evidence that Biden had pushed for a dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor to help his son.
The ad spread for days on the social network, where it racked up more than five million views. On October 4, the Biden campaign wrote a letter to Zuckerberg and Sandberg with a demand that it be taken down. Neither Zuckerberg nor Sandberg replied.
On October 7, Katie Harbath, head of Facebook’s engagement with political campaigns, wrote back. “Political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is,” she noted, adding that the misleading ad would not be fact-checked and would remain on the site.
On October 17, Zuckerberg appeared at Georgetown University’s campus in Washington, DC, to deliver his first major public address on Facebook’s responsibility as a platform for speech. He came to defend his new policy for political misinformation, responding with defiance to criticism from the Biden campaign and scores of lawmakers.
He began his speech with a lie.
Zuckerberg stood behind a wooden lectern before 740 students, faculty, and media in the ornate Gaston Hall, a storied venue where presidents, religious leaders, and English royalty had spoken. Century-old murals of Jesuit figures and mythical Greek heroes adorned the walls. Zuckerberg’s audience was quiet, and the mood was solemn. They applauded politely and stayed in their seats. It was nothing like when Sen. Bernie Sanders or President Obama spoke on campus. Then, students stood, and their cheers could be heard from outside the building.
Zuckerberg, with the sleeves of his black sweater pushed up on his forearms, began to read from the teleprompters. He offered a revisionist history of Facebook’s genesis. While he was at Harvard, he told the audience, the United States had just gone to war in Iraq: “The mood on our campus was disbelief,” he said, adding that he and other students were eager to hear more perspectives about the war. “Those early years shaped my belief that giving everyone a voice empowers the powerless and pushes society to be better over time.”
On Twitter, journalists and academics called out Zuckerberg for attempting to rewrite Facebook’s origin story. The platform was widely understood to have begun with a project to rate hot Harvard girls, not quite the serious-minded undertaking he was describing fifteen years later on the Georgetown stage. And while protests had broken out at Harvard and other schools across the United States after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Zuckerberg had not discussed, nor had he exhibited any interest in, the war, and his site was used for more mundane interests, friends recalled. “I was very surprised to hear that version,” Chris Hughes said. “People largely used [Thefacebook] to share movie and music recommendations—not to protest foreign wars.”
The story was a reminder of how much time had passed since the world was first introduced to Facebook. Once viewed as a hero hacker among college students, Zuckerberg now came off as a rich thirty-five-year-old father of two. The college students were almost a full generation younger than he. They weren’t using Facebook, a site popular with older audiences. Many were on Instagram but were increasingly spending time on Snapchat and TikTok.
Georgetown was a deliberate choice. Facebook’s policy and lobbying staff wanted to find a place for Zuckerberg to deliver his speech where his words would carry intellectual and historical import. The staff wanted to do it in Washington, with Zuckerberg’s most important viewers a few miles east, at the White House and on Capitol Hill. Facebook staff treated it like a major political event, sending an advance team to sweep the hall and plan out the choreography for Zuckerberg’s entrance. Next to the wooden lectern at the center of the stage, they arranged for teleprompters. And the Facebook CEO had worked on the speech for weeks.
Zuckerberg then described the importance of free speech in the civil rights movement. With every social movement comes a clampdown on free expression. He evoked the Black Lives Matter movement, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King Jr., who was jailed for protesting peacefully. “In times of social tension, our impulse is often to pull back on free expression. Because we want the progress that comes from free expression, but we don’t want the tension,” he said.