Former Facebook exec says social media is ripping apart society
‘No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth.’
Another former Facebook executive has spoken out about the harm the social network is doing to civil society around the world. Chamath Palihapitiya, who joined Facebook in 2007 and became its vice president for user growth, said he feels “tremendous guilt” about the company he helped make. “I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,” he told an audience at Stanford Graduate School of Business, before recommending people take a “hard break” from social media.
Palihapitiya’s criticisms were aimed not only at Facebook, but the wider online ecosystem. “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works,” he said, referring to online interactions driven by “hearts, likes, thumbs-up.” “No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth. And it’s not an American problem — this is not about Russians ads. This is a global problem.”
He went on to describe an incident in India where hoax messages about kidnappings shared on WhatsApp led to the lynching of seven innocent people. “That’s what we’re dealing with,” said Palihapitiya. “And imagine taking that to the extreme, where bad actors can now manipulate large swathes of people to do anything you want. It’s just a really, really bad state of affairs.” He says he tries to use Facebook as little as possible, and that his children “aren’t allowed to use that shit.” He later adds, though, that he believes the company “overwhelmingly does good in the world.”
Chamath Palihapitiya, Founder and CEO Social Capital, on Money as an Instrument of Change
Palihapitiya’s remarks follow similar statements of contrition from others who helped build Facebook into the powerful corporation it is today. In November, early investor Sean Parker said he has become a “conscientious objector” to social media, and that Facebook and others had succeeded by “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology.” A former product manager at the company, Antonio Garcia-Martinez, has said Facebook lies about its ability to influence individuals based on the data it collects on them, and wrote a book, Chaos Monkeys , about his work at the firm.
These former employees have all spoken out at a time when worry about Facebook’s power is reaching fever pitch. In the past year, concerns about the company’s role in the US election and its capacity to amplify fake news have grown, while other reports have focused on how the social media site has been implicated in atrocities like the “ethnic cleansing” of Myanmar’s Rohingya ethnic group .
In his talk, Palihapitiya criticized not only Facebook, but Silicon Valley’s entire system of venture capital funding. He said that investors pump money into “shitty, useless, idiotic companies,” rather than addressing real problems like climate change and disease. Palihapitiya currently runs his own VC firm, Social Capital, which focuses on funding companies in sectors like healthcare and education.
Palihapitiya also notes that although tech investors seem almighty, they’ve achieved their power more through luck than skill. “Everybody’s bullshitting,” he said. “If you’re in a seat, and you have good deal flow, and you have precious capital, and there’s a massive tailwind of technological change ... Over time you get one of the 20 [companies that become successful] and you look like a genius. And nobody wants to admit that but that’s the fucking truth.”
Tags
Who is online
115 visitors
Before Social Media, we cut the grass. Now we watch it grow.
Chamath Palihapitiya, who joined Facebook in 2007 and became its vice president for user growth, said he feels “tremendous guilt” about the company he helped make. “I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,” he told an audience at Stanford Graduate School of Business, before recommending people take a “hard break” from social media.
Palihapitiya’s criticisms were aimed not only at Facebook, but the wider online ecosystem.
It seems that little by little people are beginnig to wake up to the negative impact social media has had on our society...
If social media does not self regulate forthwith regulation must be imposed upon social media, period...
The law of unintended consequences was put in play by enabling easy worldwide mass communication.
How did we become desensitized? How did we become callous? How could we become so misinformed?
I definitely understand your feelings JBB, should we do this by electoral, popular or just plain old dictatorship?
Fortunately we went the other way by getting rid of net “neutrality”.
How did we become desensitized? How did we become callous? How could we become so misinformed?
In the 60's Marshall McLuhan wrote a book called "Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man". One of the main messages of the book was that "The media is the message". Basically that even that the same message (for example, the same news story) would be perceived differently, depending on the media it was in.
In other words--no matter how hard you try, its inevitable that the media itself alters the message of the article (or video) to some degree.
Its especially interesting when the media is in transition. In those days, the "old" media that was rapidly declining in usage was radio-- the "new" media was TV. But some people still got their news from radio. As TV starting replacing radio, the effect was that it starting changing society in some ways.
That was during the Viet-Nam War. And McLuhan felt that the same report of a story on the war, the exact same facts, were perceived slightly differently if the consumer of news got their news via radio-- or via TV.
So what's the point of all this? Simply that the media itself, the medium reporting the news, impacts how that news is perceived.
Today we are transitioning from TV to Internet. Applying McLuhan's ideas, the main takeaway is that the "messages" we keep getting, in addition to their content-- are influenced by the media (the Internet). And because the Internet is so different than TV, the messages are different-- and that is changing society. (And IMO not necessarily in a good way)
I agree with all of that Krishna, but I also want to include this. Not too long ago TV and newspapers were the main sources for news, but no so much today. I knew a fellow who had delivered newspapers all his life and finally quit because his really good route kept getting smaller and smaller. Anyway, these news sources basically controlled the people's beliefs, because there was no other source they could get their information unless they were a part of the story themselves.
The media had the power to control the people through the news without any other source challenging them, but today there are numerous sources where people can get their information and a person with a little curiosity and a computer can verify the news they receive or at least question it, whereas they didn't have that ability before. When news sources are proven wrong with facts a number of times, people begin to question them more often and the more times they are proven wrong, the less confidence the people have in what are suppose to be reliable sources for the truth.
I think that is where we are today. The news sources are driven to promote certain ideas and beliefs and are being proven wrong everyday. The alternate news sources are starting to have a seat at the table with the internet so easily accessible and that is driving the old established ones crazy. They just can't accept that their lies are not being swallowed quite so easily these days.
Social media is spreading the truth and lies today and everyone has a pretty equal footing with the internet. The establishment news still has the bigger footprint, but social media is expanding with more people becoming aware of the reliable sources they have found who compare and contradict what use to be the only sources.
Social Media? I guess if you call Hillary Clinton running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor is what Social Media has become, I suppose this is where we are and this is what we deserve.
Conservatism and it ally of Russian lies now owns us. We have Trump.
bb, there's room enough for everyone to post lies on social media, not just Trump.
Trump doesn't have a monopoly on......
‘No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth.’
Let's not make this about Trump, please. I'll even change my picture if you think it would help you.
I think we can all agree Trump is more of a symptom and not the cause of our awful social discourse. Fake news gets a lot bigger response than real news does. Inflammatory bullshit gets way more play than thoughtful analysis. Nobody is saying that this is all one sided but let us be honest. An overwhelming percent of the krazy ass bullshit we see pass for content nowadaze comes directly from the right wing circus. Trump's and his crew's shenanigans do take up all of the oxygen nowadays but that cannot be lain at the feet of anyone other than Trump and Co. Outrageous and inflammatory is all we get out of Trump, Trump's administration and the gop in Congress. Thirty Thousand Dollar Tables, Hundreds of thousands on doors. Millions on private flights. None of the news out of DC is good and the gop is in total control for once. It is really all so over the top nothing else can compete newswise. What did republicans expect? Mature confidence and grace under fire? Come On! We elected a reality TV Star to be President of the United States so mayhem has ensued. We are all participants in a freak show of international proportions. The real headlines off the UP and the AP are so over the top it is unbelievable. People are genuinely concerned about the security of our republic and it is not without good cause. Seriously, People are asking themselves how long this can go on before something must be done.
Except this conversation would not be taking place if it weren't for fake news and lie news.
I was doing pretty good for awhile.
And there you have it, Six. It's all because of the right. People have become so desensitized that they can't even see that the level of crap comes from both sides of the fence. The 'we need to blame ___________' has become the only thing that matters to them. There is only Black and White in their world, while in reality there is a whole palette along the entire spectrum of color, only they can not see it. Mostly by choice.
Exactly.
And IMO that's one of the main impacts of the "new" media-- i.e. the Internet. Its accelerated the "dumbing down of America". And we see it here everyday in political discussion on NT.
What do I mean by "stupidity" in discussions?
A- The people here who actually seem to have the inability to discuss a topic. Rather, their idea of a discussion is constantly hurling insults and personal attacks at anyone with a different opinion...definitely "stuck on stupid"...
B. The unquestioning acceptance of the ridiculous belief that every politician one side is good, moral, well intentioned, and always right-- the other side is always the opposite. (
So which side are the good guys? Well it obvious! The "Progressives" are sure all progressives have all the positive virtues and teh Conservatives are all the bad guys. But of course the Conservatives believe the exact same thing-- but with the labels (Lberal or Conservative) reversed.
Yes-- people ideally should accept responsibility for their own actions-- but its also true that this rapidly expanding level of sheer stupidity (yes, on both sides of the aisle) is greatly aided and abetted by the current dominant form of media-- the Internet.
I agree with you 100% JBB. It doesn't even have to be fake. It can be the truth as long as it is comparable to something we use to see in 'The National Enquirer'. Making a mountain out of a mole hill seems to be fad these days.
Very good.
This is where all you Facebook photos go to....
They collect everything
Great memes Six. Freewill put up a group that would love this stuff. Here's a link.
Yes, it can be for some people. Look around you every day. Look at yourself.
Nice post.
It's bad. Cell phones usage is restricted at my house and not allowed at the dinner table at all.
I haven't had a cell phone since 1999 when I had to have one for my job as a building inspector. No Facebook, No twitter, no texting and I love it. I do notice just about everywhere I go I'm the only one with my head up looking around, everyone else is glued to their smart phones as if their real lives are taking place on that tiny screen instead of right in front of them. Restaurants, theatre lines, the pool, the beach, the park, nearly everyone, head down, both arms up, cell phone in hand with thumbs tapping. It regularly makes me think of John Carpenters "They Live" and I feel like I'm the only one walking around able to see them for what they really are.
isn't this a form of social media ?
Why yes it is.
Reading some of the comments in political discussions here, it often seems more like anti-social media
Nope, according to one of the memes above (which is the absolute truth), it's only anti social media if you take pages with writing on them and bind them together into what we used to call a book. I'm sure you've seen one in a museum or something like that.
I am really, really old fashioned. There's always one book I am reading in my spare time. (Of course now-a days I think we're becoming more superficial-- nmow many kids would have difficulty reading anything more than 140 characters (or I beleive its been doubled?).
And that's one way the "new" media (The Internet") has impacted us-- most everything is now short quick sound bites-- which of course leads to a very superficial level of conversation.
And you know Krishna, it's really difficult to communicate on the Internet. So much confusion can develop in between those comments. It takes a lot of typing to compare to face to face conversation and by the time you get started you have to explain what you meant with that last comment. If can be quite frustrating and short bites are often what you end up with when you really had so much more to say.
I totally agree
The medium is indeed "the message"-- or at least influences it to a very large degree. But what is the solution? IDK. Perhaps parents should greatly limit their children's exposure. But then again-- some adults adults are just as bad as the kids (in terms of addiction).
And I am convinced excessive use of the Internet is an addiction-- just as addicting as many drugs.
Of all the programmes attempting to help alcoholics, AAA is supposedlyone ofthe most effective. Andits generated many offshoots thatuse their method-- from Cociane Users Anonymous to Debtors Anonymous, etc. So I was wonder if there was onwe for those addicted to the Internet.
Here's what I found:
1. reStART . I'm not sure it uses the AA model, but it seems fairly similar:
Our Mission
"Sustainable digital media use for people and the planet."
Helping connect digital media users with what matters most - life. Our innovative program model assists the digitally distracted discover their passion and purpose in life. At reSTART, we understand that problematic Internet and gaming use often co-occurs with other mental health conditions. Our program is designed to address a wide variety of underlying issues which may contribute to excessive Internet use (e.g., family problems, divorce, childhood trauma, depression, anxiety, ADHD, etc.) by connecting individuals with integrative community service providers knowledgeable in theses areas during a stay at the center. FAQ (interesting stuff...)
___________________________________________________________________________
2. Internet Technology Addiction Anonymous (ITAA) . . . . .
There were a lot more results but I don't have time now to go through them all....
Here's another one:
addiction.com - Technology Addiction Treatment
Lots of useful information there . . .
Looking in from outside, it seems there is a lot of civil unrest going on in the Western world (or is that just "Fake News"). Since most of society here in China is pretty content I'm beginning to think that perhaps the government has done the right thing by banning so many internet sites here - in particular Facebook.
Yeah I'd rather have the choice.
The cartoon isn't realistic - Google ls blocked in China.
Can't open that link, nor will it copy so I can't paste it on a browser. Damn. I hope saying that is not going to get me into trouble.
Maybe you can see it this way, Buzz.
LOL. Got it, thanks.
Actually, it's amazing how close the cartoon is to the real thing. I took this photo of The Great Wall in 2006.
As,long as they don't oppose the government of course
Most people here have no reason to oppose the government.
I've been able to reconnect with lots of friends on Facebook-long lost friends form my Air Force Career and even from my school days. I have seen lots of people treat Facebook like they used ot acto on Newsvine. I remember something my parents taught me as a child. 'Just because you can say something, doesn't mean you should'. That lesson seems to be lost on many on FB and here, to an extent, that are willing to say anything or post anything becuase no one can stop them and they've stopped understanding that what they post is truly a reflection of the person they are-and others see it. Classlessness is rampant.
Facebook definitely has its good points. I joined many years ago, but too many people I didn't even know wanted to be my friend and after listening to family members tell what was happening on there, I decided to cancel my membership. Actually, I canceled it right after I joined.
They said if you was to unsubscribe, click here and then they said anytime I wanted to subscribe, just sign in. LOL
I don't have a fb, Instagram. or Twitter account. And never did. And that's a bit ironic as I was an "early adapter" (of The Internet}. I was very excited when I first opened a programme for email. But then I realized I had a problem-- at that time I didn't know a single person who had email! I called relatives across the continent. Old friends. Co-workers-- not one single person had an email account back then-- i literally couldn't use my email for a while!
That's funny, but I know what you mean. Now with the smart phones with everyone walking around in a trance the computer is becoming secondary to the smart phone. I rarely use my email while on my computer other than for business. It's easier to clean my inbox out while on my computer though. I use text messaging more more than anything else. You can easily send links with text messages and I receive all the email that I get on my computer on my phone.
The big mystery to me is how advertising is so important in the first place. Personally, I’ve never once purchased something as a result of seeing an Internet ad for it. I’ve never been influenced to vote for someone because of something in an ad. In fact, the only times I’ve ever clicked on an ad were because of accidentally clicking the mouse when the cursor wasn’t where I wanted it. I think to myself, “who the hell are these people who are actually doing this on purpose?”
I’ve also never purchased something because of an ad I saw on tv or heard on the radio. Some ads are so goddamn annoying that I will purposely not buy that product, because I’m sick of being bombarded with their ads and having their annoying jingles bouncing around in my head. That said, there are some ads that are clever and some that are truly entertaining - but I still only buy products when they are the best deal for the money. I do buy a ton of stuff, but I mainly shop at antique stores, consignment shops, flea markets, and Craigslist - obviously advertising is not impacting any of those purchases. I do buy a shitload of stuff on amazon, but that is again a form of shopping that is not impacted by advertising. I just don’t get it.
I keep getting advertisements like these. Strange.... Wonder what's up with that?
Not now, but there was a time I would have bought what the first ad displayed.
I kind of take those two photos as 'I look at them and then they look at me'. Then it's what I see and what they see.
People are different. And some are influenced by ads.
Ads on TV-- especially that are run nationally-- are very expensive. So companies wouldn't pay for them if they didn't yield results. (And market research, focus groups, etc has gotten pretty sophisticated-- so they can get a pretty good picture of how effectives any given ad might be.
But I'm like you in one regard--I never bought anything from an ad. Well-- one time I did. It was an Infomercial for a three CD-Set: The Legendary Sounds of Sun Studios. An excellent selection-- it would take a lot of work for me to piece together a collection like that. (Johnny Cash, Roy Orbison, Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins...Million Dollar Quartet, Howlin' Wolf...Rockabilly, Country, Blues, etc). Reasonably priced, so I ordered it-- I wasn't disappointed.
So do I Hal. I research almost everything I buy if it is something I don't normally buy. And I don't just take the word. I use to talk to the tech people more than I did the sales people when I bought different items, because they are the people who can tell me which products are having the least amount of problems.
It isn't Social Media that's the problem. It's the people using it.
All Social Media has done is given Partisans, Manipulators, Narcissists, etc a convenient instrument to spread their venom and ply their trade of egoism and hatred. Look no further than NT for proof of that.
That said, the people who believe nonsense like that are the real problem. Useful idiots as it were ....
If that's the case..(that its the people using it).. how can we explain the way society has changed.The polarization..the general nastiness...the superficiality...?
I find it extremely hard to understand why some folks insist on blaming the instrument/tool and not the operator. It's a concept that proliferates all aspects of life these days. Someone gets shot, it's the guns fault, someone abuses drugs it's the drug companies fault, someone doesn't come in first place and it's the communities fault ..... better give everyone a trophy so there is no hurt feelings ..... and on and on it goes.
Ridiculous! What we've lost is a sense of personal responsibility. It's always someone elses fault. Man's capacity to be nasty has always been there. Things like facebook just make it easy to be a prick to larger swaths of people. Look no further than NT for proof of that. it's always been a choice but it's a lot easier to be a prick on the net rather than face to face. Might get your ass kicked being nasty face to face don't ya know.
Nah, you can blame the tool, i'll continue to blame the real problem. The person using the tool.
Some people have something to offer and some don't on social media. I think it is instant gratification, whether it's positive or negative isn't as important as getting a reaction, a response, anything to notice...
Failing to recognize the fact that Fox started it all and went full blown talking head pundit opinion duping it's viewers into believing that opinions are "news" and that "opinions" are facts.
Nixon plotted the path of the future when he partnered with Roger Ailes a way to take over media and promote conservatism.
Fox was born out of this era and was plotted and planned deliberately. Read the full Nixon transcript tapes of the meetings with Roger Ailes and read the transcript about Nixon and his views and plans for the media.
Nixon was a paranoid who had a revenge fantasy because he believed Kennedy won due to his great television appeal, his good looks and speaking abilities, which played well in the media.
Conservatives jumped on board with Nixon and Fox claims to be "the most powerful name in news", not to mention all the far right wing pundits that rose up over time like Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and the list of major right wing opinionated pundits goes on and on and on.
This year for the first time MSNBC has seen a rise in viewers and Maddow has seen extremely high ratings and viewership after years and years and years of right wing dominated media like the very powerful Fox network.
The myth of media bias toward the left is just a myth and is being played like a whiny violin for all it's worth by the right wing. Right wing viewers don't want "both sides", they don't want bipartisanship, they don't want any voice being heard other than an echo chamber reflecting their own opinions back to them. Fox has been happy to oblige or they put the opinions out there and let them believe it's "truth" when it isn't.
Why is it that when any outlet reports a factual major event like wildfires, earthquakes, accidents, and other real events, no one questions it, even on the right. But if any outlet reports a fact about politics, the spin begins, it doesn't matter how much research is provided a backup.
Social media has taken the Fox mantle and simply repeated the same Fox experience allowing a slant toward the right all the while pretending that they had nothing to do with it.
It doesn't matter that research has proven that Fox has the least informed viewers because opinions are not information. Same applies to social media. The right wing does not want real information, they love conspiracies, they demand to be right even when they are wrong and they cringe when proven wrong and try to spin it to fit their own opinions or their own world view.
If the right wing wanted to face reality, they would face down the fact that Trump and his family are a Global Empire with worldwide Hotels, Golf Courses, and many, many global businesses and interests. That is not making America great.
Every fact that is revealed they simply ignore it. So when Trump or his family go overseas to open the Trump Dubai, or the Trump Ireland, or the Trump Panama, or wherever they go in the world, you have to ask yourself, why not in America? Fox won't ask that.
Unlike Left wing viewers of which all of them want to only hear both sides.
(Interesting eh? How do we explain the difference? Are all left wing viewers somehow superior-- maybe its genetically determined?
Dear Friend SixPick: Your "toon" reminds me of a theatrical review by a bi-polar critic.
He wrote of a play he saw, "I laughed. I cried".
Smiles.
E.
I thought that was a pretty good meme.
Dear Friend Sixpick: Another good one!
In case I don't see (read) you here, all best wishes for a joyous and meaningful Easter holiday forthcoming to you and yours.
E.
And the Passover for you my friend Enoch.
Dear Friend SixPick: Many thanks.
As Pesach (Freedom Festival of Passover) will commence an hour before the first Seder (ritual meal) 03/30/2018 this year We will not have any food with leavening in it for eight days and nights.
Accordingly, We already have an order in tonight to Captain Tony's for one of their large Pizza Prima Vera (The Big Tony).
It is a whole grain crust, with mushrooms, olives, eggplant, bell pepper, onions and artichoke hearts.
The sauce is marinara.
It is a quatro formaggio (four cheese ) pizza.
I adore Passover Food.
Mrs. E. makes a world class Matzoh Brie (scrambled eggs veggies and unleavened bread omelette).
That said, our daughter cannot make it eight days and nights without a Captain Tony's pizza to sustain her before and after the holiday.
This too has become a family tradition.
Family around a holiday table.
It doesn't get better than that for us.
Smiles.
E.
Yeah, that's the way the left looks at themselves and others. I'm superior to 'those' people.....but in reality? They aren't, they just think they are.
I don't blame you!!!
ACtually CNN was the first 24x7 talking head channel and they had no competition. Once upon a time they strove for journalistic integrity, but the 24x7 newscycle needed to attract and keep customers to be viable, so off into 'entertainment' and 'opinions' they went. Every one of the channels followed behind CNN.
Now they are the first 24x7 Porn channel. I bet they're all worked up by the end of the day.
I remember when they were the alternative to the big three and conservatives went there in numbers before Ted Turner changed. I remember most on the right tuning in cnn during desert 🌵 ⛈ stirm. Then he went wacko and cnn turned on the right. Five years later, Fox News was created. 1996, a great year in American media history.
So how do you explain CNN and MSNBC?
Not only do social networks just promote terrorism, they also facilitate it. Hence, lone wolf attacks.
I would venture to say without social media, possibly most of these shootings like the one in Florida recently would have never occurred.
Agreed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's a good one Jane.
Thanks. I thought it was fitting.
There are so many that are appropriate today including the people taking a video or a person drowning instead of saving that person. This one seems to be very appropriate to today's news when they expect us to believe them. It's also above.