Economy & Business

Mark Zuckerberg’s Insufferable Tripe

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in 2013 (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
The Cambridge Analytica blowup is bringing a useful spotlight on the most sanctimoniously self-regarding large company in America.

Once again, Mark Zuckerberg is sorry.

The founder of Facebook, who has apologized for privacy breaches throughout much of his company’s existence, is back at it, on a much larger stage than ever before.

The proximate cause is the Cambridge Analytica controversy. In violation of Facebook’s rules, the Trump-linked political consultancy schemed to get access to the data of 87 million users. This has made Facebook a scapegoat for President Donald Trump’s victory on par with the Russians and James Comey (at least before the FBI director got fired and became a Trump adversary).

In 2012, President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign did a less underhanded version of the same thing as Cambridge. The great chronicler of the Obama digital operation, Sasha Issenberg, wrote of how its “‘targeted sharing’ protocols mined an Obama backer’s Facebook network in search of friends the campaign wanted to register, mobilize, or persuade.” No scandal ensued — rather, the Obama team was hailed as geniuses who changed campaigning forever.

It’s not Zuckerberg’s fault that he has suddenly been deemed on the wrong side of history, but the Cambridge Analytica blowup is bringing a useful spotlight on the most sanctimoniously self-regarding large company in America. Facebook can’t bear to admit that it has garnered the largest collection of data known to man to sell ads against and line the pockets of its founder and investors.

The problem isn’t that Mark Zuckerberg is a businessman, and an exceptionally gifted one, but that he pretends to have stumbled out of the lyrics of John Lennon’s song “Imagine.” To listen to him, Facebook is all about connectivity and openness — he just happens to have made roughly $63 billion as the T-shirt-wearing champion of “the global community,” whatever that means.

It’s this pose that makes him and other Facebook officials sound so shifty. In a rocky interview with Savannah Guthrie of the Today show last week, Sheryl Sandberg was asked what product Facebook sells. “We’re selling the opportunity to connect with people,” she said, before catching herself, “but it’s not for sale.”

Something or other must be for sale, or Facebook is the first company to rocket to the top ranks of corporate America based on having no product or profit motive. Guthrie, persisting, stated that Facebook sweeps up data for the use of advertisers. Sandberg objected: “We are not sweeping data. People are inputting data.”

Uh, yeah. That’s the genius of it. In a reported exchange with a friend while he was a student at Harvard, Zuckerberg boasted of having data on thousands of students because “people just submitted it.”

It’s possible to imagine something like Facebook run as a nonprofit service for the global commons. That’s not what Zuckerberg chose to do to.

Zuckerberg has now managed the same trick on a global scale. On the one hand, Facebook has indeed made efforts to protect the data of its users, knowing that it can’t risk a fundamental breach of trust. On the other, Zuckerberg has repeatedly said he’s sorry for offenses against his users’ privacy because his business model contradicts his self-righteous public posture.

The company is deeply committed to that posture. In the Today interview, Sandberg made a confession as humble brag: “We were very idealistic and not rigorous enough.” In his prepared testimony before a House committee, Zuckerberg declared: “Facebook is an idealistic and optimistic company. For most of our existence, we focused on all the good that connecting people can bring.”

It’s possible to imagine something like Facebook run as a nonprofit service for the global commons. That’s not what Zuckerberg chose to do to. To his credit, he created a compelling — nay, for some people, addicting — product and made a killing for the ages.

Perhaps the public pressure will force the social network to give its customers even more control over the use of their data. At a minimum, it will have achieved something if it gets Facebook to give up the saccharine one-world rhetoric about its mission and admit that the bottom line is as important to it as to any other profit-making company.

© 2018 by King Features Syndicate

Rich Lowry — Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via email: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. 

Most Popular

Religion

Understanding the Mind of Modern Atheists

‘Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matthew 24:35). Anthony DeStefano uses this Bible quote toward the end of his new book Inside the Atheist Mind: Unmasking the Religion of Those Who Say There Is No God, pointing to the resiliency and truth of Christianity. “You can hide it, ... Read More
Economy & Business

How the Constitution Limits State Taxes

Must a company have a physical presence in a state for that state to require it to collect taxes? The Supreme Court is considering that question, which has grown more important as online sales have taken off. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has submitted an excellent brief arguing that the answer is yes, at ... Read More
Culture

Off the Shelf: Suicide of the West

Editor’s Note: Every week, Michael Brendan Dougherty writes an “Off the Shelf” column sharing casual observations on the books he's reading and the passing scene. Before social media, Jonah Goldberg would respond to obstreperous emails from a much younger version of me with a characteristically light ... Read More
Education

The Scholarship/Activism Balance — A Rejoinder

The Martin Center recently published an article by sociology professor Fabio Rojas, in which he argued that professors should maintain the right balance between their teaching and scholarship on the one hand, and activism on the other. In today's article, the Center's Jay Schalin pushes back somewhat. Schalin ... Read More