Like tobacco smoking, part of the evidence on the harm caused by social media is becoming widely understood. Addiction, lowered self-esteem and destructive behaviour particularly affect the young, and a movement with significant backing from conservative religion in Australia has successfully campaigned to ban social media for people under 16. Let's be clear. A ban is not the solution. The damage caused by today's version of social media goes much deeper than addicting children, outrageous as that is. We need to understand how social media works to know how to respond.

Social Propaganda For Hire

I've just finished reading the hilarious tell-all book about Facebook written by Kiwi Sarah Wynn-Williams (Greg's review of her "Careless People" is elsewhere in this issue. Ed.). ALL THEIR SECRETS ARE OUT, as Trump would tweet. Zuckerberg is sly not brilliant and dreams of being US President; Facebook elected Trump I; the Myanmar military ran a mass murder campaign on Facebook; Facebook pays ridiculously minimal tax all around the world; courts conservative politicians to ensure minimal regulation; gave US knowledge on AI (artificial intelligence) and data centres to China as leverage in their attempt to enter the Chinese market; and offered a customised Facebook to support censorship and surveillance in China.

This is a great read, full of outrageous true stories from the highest pinnacle of modern corporate life, and what do we learn? The workplace culture is toxic, nothing is allowed to get in the way of growth and profits, sexism is rife, Republicans are taking over senior management. You still think these people are smart? Well, they do their best to convince you. The famous algorithm works differently for Zuckerberg; good views automatically go big, bad views disappear. What a surprise. Good as Wynn-Williams' book is, it's still missing an analysis of how social media works. Sarah was a diplomat, skilled at bringing people together to negotiate deals. Her tales about Facebook tend to assume social media could have brought people together if it had been built ethically.

But at heart Facebook isn't a tool for you and your friends to chat and share photos. It's a platform to give you a little fun, carefully designed to addict, so it can take data on everything about you and monetise it. It's also a platform to steal the news feeds of genuine journalists, so you stay on Facebook. Most important, Facebook is a platform to prioritise whatever views the big money wants you to see. And it's wide open to illicit manipulation, encouraging use by the most corrupt. This is a propaganda tool for hire, keeping misinformation concocted to serve the rich, the military, and criminals in your face.

These are ugly people who care only about getting richer. When research on a trial campaign to encourage voting in the USA showed how effectively Facebook campaigns changed behaviour, guess what the policy team's first choice for application enhancement was? Supporting the military. Second choice was a global organ donor initiative.

Electing Trump I

Here's just one telling anecdote, all quotes but slightly edited for brevity: "Mark Zuckerberg is mad. When he arrives at the airport to fly to APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) in Peru, he's fuming at the suggestion he had any responsibility for the election results. Over the course of the ten-hour flight, Elliot patiently explains to Mark all the ways that Facebook basically handed the election to Donald Trump. It's pretty fucking convincing and pretty fucking concerning".

"Facebook embedded staff in Trump's campaign team in San Antonio for months, alongside Trump campaign programmers, ad copywriters, media buyers, network engineers, and data scientists. A Trump operative named Brad Pascale ran the operation together with the embedded Facebook staff, and he basically invented a new way for a political campaign to shitpost its way to the White House, targeting voters with misinformation, inflammatory posts, and fundraising messages".

"Trump's team had a database with profiles of over 220 million people, which was directly linked to their Facebook profiles. Facebook's 'Lookalike Audiences' algorithm targeted people with qualities similar to known Trump voters. Messaging was customised too. Moms worried about childcare got ads claiming Trump wanted '100% Tax Deductible Childcare'. Ads were tested and tweaked using Facebook's Brand Life surveys. Many of the ads were inflammatory, which increased social media 'engagement', which reduces the cost of advertising".

"Trump heavily outspent Clinton on Facebook, and was one of Facebook's top advertisers globally. They could afford it because their targeting also raised millions in contributions; Facebook was Trump's largest source of cash. They also ran voter suppression campaigns targeted at three groups of Democrat supporters: young women, white liberals, and Black voters. These voters got 'dark posts' - non-public posts that are invisible to researchers or anyone else looking at their feed".

"Mark quietly takes it all in. At first, he's sceptical and pushing back, but that gradually turns to curiosity. He starts asking questions, trying to understand the mechanics of it all. He doesn't seem upset that the platform would be used this way, not in the slightest". To fill out the context here, by then Republican operators held senior positions across Facebook's management. They could do whatever unethical/illegal stuff the US allows them to get away with. There's no need to brief their boss because they all agree. This is just business as usual, building the symbiotic relationship between corrupt Government and reduced corporate regulation.

We Make The Decisions

When Sarah Wynn-Williams started at Facebook, she knew Facebook and Governments would have to develop "the rules of the road" to govern social media, because it impacted elections, privacy, free speech, taxes, etc, etc. She proposed a "global council" - 15 to 20 experts around the world who could advise on political and strategic issues in their countries. Checking with a friend at Goldman Sachs, she confirmed this is normal business for many transnational corporations. The idea was rejected in days. "We make the decisions," she was told.

Quieting The Troops, Clarifying The Priorities

Eventually, Facebook establishes an internal policy team, which lurches from crisis to crisis. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg (the then Chief Operation Officer) are on the covers of magazines, giving interviews on how they're changing the world. Some of the policy men, pugnacious veterans of American Government, push to develop a statement of what the company actually stands for. Cornering the team manager, demanding to know how we're meant to change the world, they're shocked when the answer is ... nothing really.

For Zuckerberg and Sandberg, it's obvious. We run a Website that connects people. That's what we believe in. We want more of the same. We want it to be profitable and to grow. What else is there to say? Nevertheless, something has to be done to quiet the troops, so a summit is planned for everyone (12 people) who works on policy and political issues "to decide what we stand for." Instead of diving into problems and solutions, most of the day is icebreaker games and personality quizzes. Late in the day, they turn to the big question of the day, finding an issue Facebook can lead on.

First choice, a global tool to support the military. Snippets from the conversation: Sarah: "Maybe that makes sense in America, but there are some countries that have a more complex relationship with State force, where there have been dictatorships, for example". Joel: "Don't you love our troops, Sarah?" Joel interrupts. Weeks later, Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook number two, decides organ donation will be Facebook's first proactive initiative to build relationships with Governments around the world. Sarah tries to raise the obvious ethical issues. Sandberg's indignant response: "Do you mean to tell me that if my four-year-old was dying and the only thing that would save her was a new kidney, that I couldn't fly to Mexico and get one and put it in my handbag?"

Fortunately, the male engineers team tasked with building this addition hate it, and the engineers always get their way with Mark. Sandberg's solution? Directing Sarah to write an email to the team, announcing that we're going ahead with the project, and explaining Sandberg's point of view as if it's her own. Sarah gets her first ever email from Zuckerberg, four words long: "I am overruling you." What a start to your dream job, and a clear hint of the toxic work culture at Facebook.

Why Pay Taxes When You Can Pay To Corrupt Politicians

"Careless People" provides a fascinating picture of the relationship between Facebook and global political leaders. Early on, attendees at global gatherings have zero interest in Facebook. Once the power of Facebook to help get them elected is revealed they're all ears, conceding when they should have been regulating. And Facebook jumps right in, hiring a political sales team to push politicians into becoming advertisers. They aggressively export their US "votes for money" values overseas, sparking investigations in Mexico for defying restrictions on political ads and fines and court orders in Brazil for violating bans on electoral advertising.

Next, they want to start establishing PACs (political action committees), US funds to hide corporate political donations, overseas. Sarah has to point out this is illegal in most countries, plus the obvious opposition to foreigners bankrolling their elections. After attending Davos 2015, this approach becomes explicit in Sandberg's post-summit email to the management team: "Where policy makers have a positive experience using Facebook for campaigns or governance, they're more open to partnering with us to address policy issues". Like Ireland creating a new version of the double-Irish tax avoidance for tech companies like Facebook, despite an EU crackdown. In a part of the meeting where Sarah was instructed to stop taking notes.

Exploiting The Vulnerable

In 2017 a leaked document reveals Facebook offering advertisers the opportunity to target 13-to-17-year-olds when the feel "worthless", "insecure", "stressed", "defeated," "anxious," "stupid," "useless," and "like a failure". Or when they're worried about their bodies, or losing weight. By now, this targeting of teens in a fragile emotional state is standard practice for sales teams, happening every day all around the world.

The company puts out a false statement saying: "Facebook does not offer tools to target people based on their emotional state", and fires one junior researcher as cannon fodder. Sarah gets an annoyed call from one of the top ad executives in Australia asking why. "This is our business, Sarah. We're proud of this. We shout this from the rooftops. This is what puts money in all our pockets. These statements make us look bad in front of our advertisers".

Real Solutions To This Social Media Corruption

See my review of "Attack From Within" in this issue for one well-informed and detailed response, but I don't think the author, Barbara McQuade, goes far enough. The harm done by social media has made our whole world radically worse. With private markets so focused on wrecking the world, a more effective fix is to create real competition. How about Governments providing a product which delivers just what it says - social connections without all the crap - no data theft, no personal manipulation, and no more tax fraud. Drive these Right Cheryl Sandberg wing propagandists right out of business.

Change Or Slavery

This flood of funded promotion for Rightwing ideas on social media nudges voters to support Rightwing Governments, which allows corporations a free hand. Take time to read my book review of "Plunder" in this issue to see just how bad the US version of capitalism is getting. The rich's version of "freedom" is just free slavery. Sure, low-wage workers there have a choice - which two or three insecure jobs do they take to survive. And there are only big bad employers left to choose from.

This ruthless exploitation will reach us too soon enough. New Zealand companies have to compete in a world shaped by the USA, matching their employment conditions. Rich New Zealanders aren't stupid; they are pushing for the same paths to increased profits. We face a new choice today. Either the majority of citizens get off their bums and get involved in political and workplace organisations, reshaping them from their present powerless middle-of-the-road cultures to something which reduces the power of the rich - or the rich just keep on taking more. More integration with political power, more clever social propaganda, to enable more exploitation at every level of everyday life.

Watchdog - 169 August 2025