Careless People

The morning after Trump’s election in 2016, Kaplan, a Republican, was happy, while most of the Facebook staff were upset. Someone asked if the outcome was the fault of Facebook. Schrage “look[ed] baffled” and seemed to hint that that was “preposterous” (256). At a conference a few days later, Zuckerberg claimed that Facebook had no impact on the election.

As Zuckerberg, Wynn-Williams, and other Facebook professionals prepared to leave for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Peru, Zuckerberg discovered that he forgot his passport. He blamed others for this, prompting Wynn-Williams to note that he could not take responsibility for anything. He also required extreme precautions for himself to be safe from the Zika virus, as he and his wife were trying to have a baby. Wynn-Williams had to negotiate for space for Facebook at the conference to create a “controlled structure” (263).

Zuckerberg was irate that the US election result was being blamed on Facebook and by how the press had mocked his denial. Schrage was tasked with explaining reality to him during the 10-hour flight to Peru. Highlighting how the Trump campaign targeted voters with misinformation, raised funds, discouraged Democratic groups from voting with dark posts, and used Facebook’s tools to micro-target audiences, Schrage finally got through to Zuckerberg. However, Zuckerberg was not upset with the result but impressed with the ingenuity of the campaign. Schrage advised Zuckerberg to post his understanding of Facebook’s role in the election and to outline steps that it was taking to address misinformation. Reluctant to do so, Zuckerberg made only a “very equivocal post” (268).

Since President Xi of China was attending APEC, Zuckerberg hoped to have a chance meeting. Xi’s staff made that impossible. Zuckerberg was greeted deferentially by other heads of state. Wynn-Williams observes, “It [was] like Mark [was] a kingmaker, and they [were] there to bend the knee” (272). At a session that Zuckerberg chaired, leaders complimented him and noted how they could work with Facebook. They understood the power of Facebook to their own political futures. Zuckerberg seemed preoccupied and didn’t care. He left his “Zika control bubble” to meet with President Obama. After that meeting, Zuckerberg was furious, as Obama warned him about Facebook’s “destructive role globally” and urged him to make changes (275).

On the flight back home from Peru, Zuckerberg announced that for his annual personal challenge, which he promoted on Facebook, he was going to visit all 50 states. Given that he did not enjoy travel, this caused Wynn-Williams to ask where he wanted to go first. He then highlighted the “traditional stops for presidential candidates” (280). No one would talk him out of this absurd idea.

He then claimed that he wanted to remake the American news media, even though he already had. Instead of taking Obama’s advice to heart, Zuckerberg wanted to use Trump’s playbook and become the president. According to Wynn-Williams, this was “one of many moments where Mark could have gone a different way” (285). Instead, he stubbornly dug in, refusing to accept criticism. Wynn-Williams looked him in the eye and said, “Rosebud” (285). She then clarified by explaining the allusion to Citizen Kane. Schrage explained to a baffled Zuckerberg that if he controlled the publishers and ran for office, he would be like William Randolph Hearst. Zuckerberg asked if that was a bad thing.

Although he denied that he was running for president, Zuckerberg hired consultants who helped elect Obama and Bush, and he visited Iowa and battleground states. When a scandal broke out about how Zuckerberg used shell companies to force Hawaiians via lawsuits to sell beachfront property to him, he was upset. Wynn-Williams notes that she had “never seen him so concerned about” public perceptions (289).

Additionally, he had Facebook approve a new stock structure that would allow him to run for office. Wynn-Williams was looking for a new job, but it was essential that she retain her health insurance. She has Lynch syndrome, which puts her at risk for cancer.

Sandberg increasingly sought the spotlight. At the 2017 Davos summit, Wynn-Williams was surprised to be included in a WhatsApp group of Sandberg’s advisors dedicated to complaining about her. To Sandberg’s face, these advisors were sycophants and were rewarded with lots of money. Money was on Wynn-Williams’s mind because she would potentially lose out on millions if she left the company, given the structure of equity grants.

Wynn-Williams was excited to report to Sandberg about the hundreds of thousands of women protesting against Trump in Washington. Bored, Sandberg did not care about that and asked about what Melania Trump wore to the inauguration. It took self-control for Wynn-Williams not to say, “Let them eat cake!”

Almost 200 female employees at Facebook created a secret Facebook group, the Feminist Fight Club Facebook responded with a system that incentivized and rewarded men, yet there was more open talk about harassment at Facebook.

Wynn-Williams decided to tell Schrage about Kaplan’s problematic behavior. He wanted no part of it and told her that it would work itself out. If it did not, he would write a reference for her. In case she was fired, Wynn-Williams documented her complaints with Facebook’s lawyers. She was told that if she shut down the investigation, Kaplan’s behavior would stop. She did so, and “retaliation […] beg[an] almost immediately” (301). She had to choose between running Latin America or Asia, whereas she previously did both. To avoid China, she selected Latin America and was told to lead the search for someone to run Asia and work on China in the interim.

Even though Facebook was banned in China in January 2017, it was the company’s second-largest market, with $5 billion in revenue. To get into China, the company had promised to increase China’s global influence, advertise its products, and offer surveillance. It was “dangling the possibility that it [would] give special access to users’ data” (305). This offer raised uncomfortable questions, such as who would turn people in.

Wynn-Williams found a document weighing the pros and cons of Facebook doing this work. Most shockingly, one of the cons was that “Facebook employees w[ould] be responsible for user data responses that could lead to death, torture and incarceration” (306). Kaplan rephrased this to soften the meaning. Despite this issue, management preferred Facebook employees to be the ones in control of the data and giving the information to the Chinese government.

Facebook was willing to do anything to get into the Chinese market. When the Chinese government told the company that it must have a Chinese partner, Hony Capital, which would monitor and censor content, Facebook agreed. Facebook built tools, such as “facial recognition, photo tagging, and other moderation tools to facilitate Chinese censorship” (308).

Although Facebook had refused other governments, such as Russia’s, from storing user data where they could access it, the company allowed China to do so. Contrary to Facebook’s guarantees that the Chinese government would not have access to the data of users outside of China, it would be able to access data for anyone in communication with someone in China. Facebook was also building the first undersea cable directly connecting the US and China. This project carried “very significant risks” that China would intercept data (311). Facebook was providing “white-glove service” for the Chinese Communist Party (313).