Despite the noble goals that motivated the creation of Facebook, which its creator Mark Zuckerberg has widely proclaimed, it is legitimate to ask what goal this digital giant is striving for? Looking back from the time of its creation to the global success of Facebook, it must be noted that there is clearly a fundamental naivety in Zuckerberg's approach to the Internet, and therefore in the declared goals of this platform. This naivety is primarily reflected in the belief that connecting people and their networking is enough to make the world a better place.
In light of what it has become, we cannot be satisfied with this narrative. We cannot pretend not to know everything we know today about Facebook's excesses and abuses. The scandal in which Facebook was involved in 2016 with the data processing company Cambridge Analytica, when the personal data of users was misused to support the Brexit campaign and offered services to Donald Trump, seriously compromised the company. The changing control of what circulates on the platform, aggressive propaganda, violence, all this is rightly criticized by Facebook... And whenever Facebook has found itself the target of criticism, Zuckerberg has launched into the public the image of a surprised, even offended man. But after so many outbursts - it is hard to believe that the owner of the technology giant is so naive.
Surveillance capitalism
Things are, of course, more complicated than that. The best example of this is probably the value of Facebook. The value is now estimated at around six hundred billion, and Zuckerberg's wealth at sixty billion dollars. All this did not come out of nowhere - at the turn of 2007 and 2008. Three years after founding Facebook, Zuckerberg finds his economic model and hires a woman who is very important in the history of the platform. Cheryl Summer came from Google, where she had already implemented a system based on the concept of surveillance capitalism. Basically, users are tracked based on what is collected, databases are created and sold.
If we stop using big words about the humanity of the project and look at it from a strictly economic point of view, what is Facebook? It is a huge advertising agency that can track the movements of its users in real time and is therefore able to sell facts and data to advertisers: do you want someone who goes on vacation to the mountains, who likes snowboarding – here you go…. This invasive collection of user data will allow them to then target them commercially. When we talk about trivial things, we can say that it doesn’t matter much, but when it comes to political, religious issues or even personal life, things become worrying. Basically, we have no idea that we are handing over our own data to a private company, which makes a business out of it.
What Facebook is doing is structuring a much more complete database of its users than any intelligence agency could have. And that on all dimensions of their lives. Paradoxically, there is a complete discrepancy between Facebook's tarnished image and its success on the stock market. Facebook is doing exceptionally well, and... even getting better! So, the public condemnation of Zuckerberg is not harming it at all. Quite the contrary.
Fascination with empire
Let's talk about power... Zuckerberg is the sovereign of a territory of 2,4 billion people and knows as much or more about each of its inhabitants as the countries to which those individuals belong. But he is also powerful because he is rich. What does he do with his money? He founded a foundation like Bill Gates, who is his role model. He believes that part of his wealth must be given back to the community, so he founded his own philanthropic company with his wife. But he does not distribute the money randomly, guided by great goals - his money is structured, capitalized and profitable. Of course, there is a part of the funds that is used to finance research in biology, health, science, improving education... Even people who see digital giants as new industrial empires that are not much different from those that have always existed in the United States say they are impressed when they walk past the buildings of Zuckerberg General Hospital in San Francisco. In a country that has almost abandoned the idea of the public good, Zuckerberg is financing the first public hospital, and that is worthy of all praise.
Again, the head of a company that is notoriously invasive in terms of privacy, is extremely keen to keep his life away from the public eye. Zuckerberg bases his doctrine on the postulate that by breaking down the barriers of privacy, people will understand what others are feeling. When criticized for such an approach, Zuckerberg responds, not without cynicism, that anyone can protect their private life. Of course, he ignores the fact that it is much easier to do so if you are rich.
What Facebook is doing is structuring a much more complete database of its users than any intelligence agency could possibly have. And it's about all dimensions of their lives.
One of Mark Zuckerberg's fascinations is the Roman Empire. It should be said that suspicion always arises when powerful people glorify empires and emperors. How can we interpret this fascination in the case of the Facebook boss? As a boy, he learned Latin and Greek, and he has two daughters with indicative names - Maximus and Augustus. He emphasizes that the Roman Empire was a fundamental civilizational project that significantly contributed to the development of humanity. He explains how the Empire, in order to achieve peace, acquired enemies and acted with violence. Zuckerberg seems to be a passionate lover of monumental architecture and the development of grandiose projects. So, in the manner of the Roman emperors, even if it provokes resistance, he manages to impose his vision. In 100 years, people will understand that Facebook was a fundamental progress in the history of humanity, Zuckerberg reasons.
What does this astonishing and, to say the least, excessive ambition mean? It means that Zuckerberg believes that violence may be a necessary step in building a better future. It also means that Zuckerberg sees his work as something much bigger than simple technological or entrepreneurial success – it gives it a civilizational dimension. Maybe even a political dimension, and hence we can assume that he believes that he is in some way engaged in politics. He was believed to be a staunch Democrat, but no – his only loyalty is to Facebook. He believes that his users are the community. He feels that he is introducing people to his political vision – one that has its own concept of privacy, its own concept of freedom, and the standards that it imposes on the community. Zuckerberg is politically inclined, but he does not want power – he has simply created a world in which he makes the laws.
Stolen machine
The text can explain a lot. The code is the law. from 1999 by the great American jurist Lawrence Lessing. It is very simple to understand today, but a quarter of a century ago it was visionary. Lessing says that an increasingly important part of our lives takes place online, through machines and programs. So computer programming is a political activity because programs and the algorithms that come from them decide what can or cannot be done. Computer programming is the law of the digital world and in this age we get information, meet, communicate, spend money… and we do all of this as the programs allow us to.
So, if Facebook decides that you can’t show nudity on the platform, but you can show weapons – that creates a law that applies to all the inhabitants of the Facebook planet. Back in 1999, Lessing concluded that the rules of democracy must be applied to digital and virtual spaces, otherwise we will see the emergence of digital tyrannies in which algorithms force users to do what the programs want – without the possibility of discussion. Today, social media has made Lessing’s nightmare a reality.
It is not for nothing that Zuckerberg is fascinated by the Roman Empire, because in his own way he is an emperor, and his empire is Facebook. A sovereign is someone who, without being accountable to anyone, establishes the laws we know as general terms of use, which no one reads, but which we should not ignore. Zuckerberg is, therefore, a sovereign who rules over part of the lives of 2,4 billion human beings, and his competitors are other economic and political empires, Facebook has de facto become a geopolitical force. Facebook, always and everywhere where it is attacked with reason, takes a long time to admit its responsibility, and then to react and block the content in question. In essence, it is a project with intentions that are not necessarily bad, but without any vision of possible consequences.
The Facebook boss is politically minded, but he doesn't want power - he's simply created a world where he makes the laws.
All of this creates a strange impression – that the project has outgrown its creator. Zuckerberg now finds himself in front of a machine that seems to have gone its own way, generating so much money that it is very difficult to get this ship back on track. He has 60 percent of the voting rights on the board of directors, but he also has a lot of difficulty managing his machine. Moreover, we can clearly see that in the United States, Republicans, who heavily use Facebook to broadcast their political advertising and fake news, say that Facebook is a pro-democratic platform. On the other hand, Democrats say that Facebook must be dismantled, that users must be freed from its invasive platforms. Therefore, because of the company's monopoly, more and more people are calling for its dismantling. Again, Zuckerberg keeps his head down and tries to avoid the temptations of regulation and the dismantling of his digital empire.
But this surveillance capitalism, which ultimately harms everyone except the financial markets, poses a major challenge for the future. In fact, it's a very complicated issue - Facebook is one of the platforms working to monitor all internet users, like Google and others, so dismantling Zuckerberg's empire would open up the question of how to regulate the surveillance of all similar platforms.
Naivety and cynicism
The logical question here is whether dismantling Facebook is technically possible?
Due to the integration of their messaging services and databases, including Instagram, WhatsApp or Messenger, this operation is extremely complicated. But still, companies with such little accountability and transparency should be subject to democratic rules like everyone else in civilized societies. Is it really up to Facebook or Google to determine what is allowed and what is not, to determine what can be said? This means that the freedom of our digital world is left to private companies. On the other hand, these commercial companies that do not pay taxes regularly are enterprises based on a development model that is not adapted to the functioning of democratic institutions. From this point of view, the rules and regulations are clearly not up to the mark. Zuckerberg and Facebook are not up to the challenges they have set themselves, and states do not have the resources necessary to regulate such global platforms.
But let's get back to the owner of Facebook himself. Does Zuckerberg really think that his digital empire is working for the benefit of humanity? He has been saying this since the very beginning. As we have seen, his sincerity can be seriously questioned in many circumstances and in many examples.
However, it is realistic to conclude that Zuckerberg's naivety and cynicism, paradoxically, can go hand in hand quite nicely. Facebook's success is clear proof of this.
The author is a publicist
Bonus video:
