We're sunsetting PodQuest on 2025-07-28. Thank you for your support!
Export Podcast Subscriptions
cover of episode EP44:An Ugly Truth Inside Facebook: A Former Exec's Journey

EP44:An Ugly Truth Inside Facebook: A Former Exec's Journey

2025/6/13
logo of podcast Deep into the Pages

Deep into the Pages

AI Deep Dive AI Chapters Transcript
People
主持人
专注于电动车和能源领域的播客主持人和内容创作者。
Topics
主持人: 本期节目深入探讨了前Facebook高管Sarah Wynn-Williams的个人经历,她讲述了自己在Facebook工作的经历,从最初对科技改变世界的乐观到最终的幻灭。节目重点关注了Facebook的内部文化、领导力以及公司如何处理其对世界的影响。我们跟随作者的旅程,从她最初对Facebook的潜力充满希望,到目睹公司内部权力斗争、道德底线被反复试探,以及公司文化逐渐走向冷漠和算计的整个过程。节目还揭示了一些令人惊讶的细节和关键的教训,帮助我们理解这家全球最有影响力的公司之一的运作方式。 Sarah Wynn-Williams: 我曾经相信科技能够构建一个更美好的世界,怀着这样的理想我加入了Facebook。然而,在Facebook工作的过程中,我亲眼目睹了公司内部权力斗争的加剧,道德底线的反复试探,以及公司文化逐渐滑向冷漠与算计。我经历了从最初的乐观到最终的彻底幻灭。我参与的项目,例如器官捐赠倡议,也暴露出公司高层之间在商业利益和社会责任之间的巨大分歧。我目睹了公司如何利用其平台和算法来影响政治进程,以及如何对不同国家的政府采取双重标准。我亲身经历了公司内部的压力和不公正,以及员工安全问题的严重性。最终,我意识到,Facebook的 stated mission 与实际行动之间存在着巨大的差距,增长至上的理念掩盖了道德和社会责任。我选择离开,是因为我无法再容忍这种道德的妥协。 主持人: 通过对Sarah Wynn-Williams的采访,我们了解到Facebook内部的复杂性和矛盾性,以及公司在追求增长和利润的过程中所面临的道德困境。我们也看到了公司领导层在处理这些问题上的不足之处,以及他们对员工安全和社会责任的漠视。这个故事提醒我们,科技公司拥有巨大的权力,需要承担相应的责任,我们作为用户、公民和监管者,有责任确保科技能够服务于人类的最佳利益,而不是仅仅为了自身的增长和利润。

Deep Dive

Shownotes Transcript

Welcome to the Deep Dive. This is where we take the sources you share with us, articles, research, your notes, and plunge right in. Yeah, we dig through it all to pull out the key insights, the stuff that really jumps out. And help you get informed fast. We are your guides navigating the material. Uncovering what truly matters and, you know, why you should care. And today, wow.

we are diving into a really compelling source. It's a deeply personal account from someone who worked inside Facebook, now Meta, of course. Right. And this was during a really pivotal time for them. We're talking massive growth, lots of controversy, priorities shifting all over the place. It gives you this unique insider's view of the culture, the leadership. And how they were grappling or maybe not grappling with their huge influence on the world. So our mission in this deep dive is to unpack this perspective.

We want to follow the author's journey. Uh-huh. From being pretty optimistic about Facebook initially. Right. Seeing the potential. All the way through to, well, some pretty deep disillusionment. And along the way, we'll highlight some, frankly, surprising details and crucial takeaways about one of the world's most powerful companies. Yeah. Get ready for some aha moments. We'll try to keep it clear and, you know, conversational.

Okay, let's dive in. This story, interestingly, starts way before Facebook. It actually begins with a really traumatic early experience the author had.

a shark attack. It's a very visceral account. She talks about this excruciating burning pain. Yeah. And what's really harrowing is her parents reaction at first. She wakes them up says she feels like she's burning inside and they tell her go back to sleep you'll be fine. You know that phrase mind over matter. It became a family joke later but reading about her injuries.

It's chilling. Absolutely chilling. Because we're talking life-threatening injuries here. A punctured bowel, sepsis, peritonitis, internal bleeding. Her lungs filled with fluid. One collapsed. She felt like she couldn't breathe, like she was suffocating. Just immense terror. She actually thought, I could die right this second, painfully. And the treatment itself sounds terrifying, too. Doctors working on her while she was conscious in agony.

She thought it was her own autopsy. Yeah. She says that moment, believing that was even worse than the attack itself. It just speaks to incredible resilience, both physical and mental. And she connects that survival experience directly to her later life, right? Her career choices. She does. She talks about this question that drove her. Why me?

If I survived against these odds, there has to be a reason, right? It gave her this feeling like, shouldn't I be doing something important with this life? It definitely made her bolder, more adventurous, seeking impact. Which she didn't find initially. She started at the U.N. Right.

the United Nations, but she got disillusioned pretty quickly. She calls it a finding Nemo moment, realizing the whole system felt broken. Arguing about punctuation. Exactly. Spending her 20s arguing about punctuation with bureaucrats, feeling like she wasn't making any real difference. She looked for somewhere decisions were actually being made, landed at the New Zealand embassy in D.C. Uh-huh.

And she shares some funny stories from there, like officials complimenting her good English, not realizing it's her first language. Kind of highlights the different worlds she was moving between. Totally. And it was while she was there, around early 2009, that she had what she calls her Facebook epiphany. Okay, so what was that? Well, first it was personal. She's in a foreign city, and Facebook becomes her lifeline, connecting her back home. Sure, makes sense.

But then she started seeing its potential beyond just keeping in touch. She saw politicians like Chris Hipkins in New Zealand using it to talk directly to voters. Ah, so not just a college site anymore. It's becoming political. Exactly. It clicked for her that this thing needed help navigating the politics, the regulation that was inevitably coming. So she decided to pitch them just like that.

Pretty much. She pitched Marne Levine, a senior exec there. Her argument was quite insightful, actually. That's the core idea. She basically said, look, governments made rules for things like GMOs. They're going to do the same for data and content. Facebook needs to get ahead of it, help write those rules, define its own position. Makes sense. How did that go down? Not great initially. Marne was very skeptical. The author felt like a human metal detector scanning my words.

Brutal rejection, but also kind of encouraging somehow. How so? Well, Marn apparently called back later, admitted some of her predictions about the Middle East were happening, mentioned they were thinking about a role, but had someone else in mind. Ah, so just enough hope to make the silence afterwards really sting. Exactly.

But then the unexpected opening came through a personal crisis. The huge earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand. Right. And that's where she saw Facebook's power for good in action. Definitely. People just used it instinctively. Checking in safe, sharing vital info, coordinating help, connecting when phone lines were down. It became this crucial community tool. And she used that experience in her pitch. Yeah. She made this really raw emotional pitch to Marn afterwards.

Her voice was apparently cracking as she described frantically searching online for her sister during the quake. Wow. And that personal story, it finally made Marn see Facebook through her eyes, not just as tech, but as something deeply impacting real lives, especially in a crisis. And that landed her the job, manager of global public policy. That was it.

But even then, Maren wasn't exactly brimming with confidence about the role itself. Oh, what did she say? Right after offering the job, Maren apparently added, I'm still not even sure this is a job and worried there wouldn't be enough policy work to keep her busy. Unbelievable, considering who was coming down the line. Talk about setting expectations low. Right. And stepping into Facebook after the U.N. and that

A very low-tech embassy must have been a massive culture shock. How low-tech was the embassy? She says they basically had one shared computer for internet access for the whole embassy. Seriously. So when she got her company laptop at Facebook Orientation, she genuinely thought it was just for her to use at home. The difference in tech and pace was just enormous. Okay, let's talk about the people inside. Mark Zuckerberg, first off. What

What was the vibe from him early on? The source paints him as clearly not very interested in policy or politics back then. That was seen as Sheryl's world. Right, Sheryl Sandberg. Yeah. His focus was engineering. He was apparently quite proud of disregarding the political stuff. Isn't there that story about him refusing to meet the prime minister of New Zealand, John Key? That's the one. Reportedly said Key just wanted a photo op.

The author was told Cheryl might drop by instead. It kind of shows the internal dynamic. Mark focused here, Cheryl handling the external stuff. And Cheryl Sandberg, the author didn't know much about her initially. No, she had to research her. But then she quickly saw the stardust, the celebrity status Cheryl had, especially during that PM visit. And that meeting with the NZ prime minister and Cheryl.

Sounds like it wasn't exactly high-level policy strategy. Oh, definitely not. According to the source, it was pretty surreal. Less about regulation, more about how the PM should use his Facebook page asking about his vacation plans. Vacation plans? Yeah, and apparently relaying a request from a friend back in NZ who wanted a helicopter tour. It felt more like personal networking than, you know, proper diplomacy. Wow. And there's another odd anecdote with a German delegation.

About content moderation right where Marne apparently tried to explain the challenges using this awkward example about Germans liking to share topless photos culturally yikes. How did that land? Apparently it just sort of highlights how they were struggling sometimes really clumsily to deal with different global norms and rules These details definitely paint a picture of a unique maybe slightly chaotic culture and the money

The wealth sounds staggering. Oh, yeah. She talks about early employees who made fortunes from the IPOs being price insensitive or economic volunteers. Their salaries were just like pocket change compared to their stock. Oh, economic volunteers. Yeah. And the company perks, detailed in their little red book, weren't just nice to haves, free food, laundry. It was utilitarian, meant to boost productivity, keep people working. Okay, let's shift to a specific project she worked on, the Organ Donation Initiative.

This seemed to reveal some real tension at the top. It really did. Her vision was pretty straightforward. A simple way for people to register as donors, connecting them locally, limiting Facebook's data collection. But Cheryl saw it differently. Completely. According to the source, Cheryl apparently saw it through a business and data lens,

thinking about data collection, even potentially a marketplace of organs. Wow, that's a very different framing. Starkly different. And it led to this conflict over using Facebook's megaphone, you know, promoting the initiative, using the platform's own voice. Mark versus Cheryl on that. Seems so. Mark reportedly favored keeping the platform neutral, while Cheryl wanted to actively push the organ donation sign-up. And this put the author in a tough spot. Hugely.

Cheryl told her to write an email to the whole team, including Mark, saying they were using the megaphone, basically articulating Cheryl's view under the author's name, even though she disagreed. Oh, boy. What happened? Mark apparently fired back with a pretty brutal email attacking that position. And Cheryl...

Later claims she didn't have Wi-Fi on her private jet at the time. Convenient. That points to some tricky internal dynamics. To say the least. Accountability issues, maybe. And then there was the growth team, led by a guy named Javi. What was their reputation? Described as playing fast and loose. Operating in those gray areas where rules hadn't caught up yet. Like what kind of things? Well, early on, importing user contacts without really explicit permission. And the people you may know tool described as creepy as hell.

Yeah, I remember that feeling creepy. The source gives this really unsettling example of it apparently recommending a sperm donor connect with his biological child who he didn't know. Just highlights how growth could really outrun ethical thinking. Okay, but then things shifted. Post-IPO, the stock price dropped.

And suddenly the author's policy work became critical. Absolutely critical. International markets dealing with regulators that suddenly became of vital importance because it directly impacted the share price and future growth. So her job went from maybe not even a real job to front and center. Pretty much overnight. She was suddenly traveling constantly, often being the very first person from Facebook that governments in certain countries had ever met.

Problem solving, opening doors. And some of those assignments sound incredibly challenging, like being sent to Myanmar. Oh, completely daunting. A country barely online, still under a military junta. The suggestion itself felt absurd to her. She jokes about stopping off in North Korea on the way. How do you even start in a situation like that?

It was tough. Connecting with the junta or with Aung San Suu Kyi, who was apparently in their bad books, seemed impossible. She even tried hitchhiking in the capital with a $20 bill out. Seriously? That's what the source says. But the breakthrough came unexpectedly at the World Economic Forum. She basically crashed a lunch Aung San Suu Kyi was attending, found her seat, and just sat down. Bold move. Wow.

Later, she met a deputy minister, Schwam, who was apparently so stunned she was from Facebook, he gently touched her face like to check if she was real. But that connection led to a proper meeting. So persistence paid off. Yeah. But it wasn't all hardship.

The meeting in Japan with Prime Minister Abe sounded like a success. A definite success. That's described as real policy engagement, talking data centers, privacy, linking into Japan's womenomics initiative. And the disaster response tool came up.

Yeah, which was really relevant, inspired by the tsunami in Japan and the Christchurch quake, a great example of engineering and policy coming together. Mark was apparently really pleased, called it a West Coast White House meeting. But then leadership changed. Joel Kaplan came in as the new VP of public policy. Right. And he's portrayed as a very different personality from Arne.

More impetuous, dogmatic, very U.S. focused in his worldview. How so? Well, he apparently saw Facebook as a global superpower analogous to the U.S. itself, but lacked basic geographical knowledge. The source mentions him asking if Taiwan was an island. And he tended to view the U.S. State Department as almost an extension of Facebook's policy team. He also wanted the policy team to bring in money.

pushing for political sales, Paysies. Yeah, which the author had to point out was illegal for foreign nationals regarding U.S. elections. That apparently genuinely surprised him, shows a bit of a disconnect from global realities. And under Joel, the risks for employees on the ground seem to increase. Dramatically, governments started cracking down harder. There were scary visits and actual raids, some armed in places like Brazil, Korea, India, France.

employees were genuinely scared of being arrested. - That sounds terrifying. What was Joel's response? - According to the source, incredibly frustrating for the team, he seemed fixated on Mark's two principles. - Which were? - Basically, Facebook would only step in if a country threatened to block the entire platform or if an employee was actually arrested and stuck in jail with no way out. - That seems inadequate. - He reportedly lectured the team, seeming unable to grasp their safety concerns or why they'd question authority when it was their freedom on the line.

Not his or Mark's. The Columbia meeting with President Santos is another example of this, right? With the FARC content. Yes. Mark was apparently unprepared for the FARC discussion, offered help that never really materialized.

But more to the point, Joel refused the president's office request to allow certain fart content, sticking rigidly to Facebook's internal policies, even in that sensitive political context. Around this time, were people outside the company starting to view Facebook differently? The elites say? Definitely. At Davos, Cheryl and Joel were reportedly getting warnings from peers like, you guys are about two years away from being as hated as the investment banks. And their reaction? Often.

Often defensive, apparently. Dismissing criticism as a witch hunt? Scapegoating? The source also goes into detail about the tax situation in Ireland. Right. The double Irish. Yeah.

Cheryl successfully negotiated five more years of this structure, which significantly lowered their taxes. And there was something about note-taking. Yeah, during discussions about how to keep that advantageous tax situation going, including something called the knowledge development box, Cheryl reportedly told the author explicitly to stop taking notes. Why? Because notes could be subpoenaed. She didn't want a record. It was to be kept off the books.

It really suggests a comfort level with operating in gray areas, especially for financial gain. And internet.org, which became Free Basics that continued to be controversial. Hugely.

The rollout stalled. Digital rights groups slammed it as a crap version of the Internet, a bait and switch just to get Facebook signups. For name, it's self-cause problems. Yeah. Internet.org was seen as deceptive, trying to equate Facebook with the whole Internet. It was even barred in Brazil under that name, forcing the change to free basics globally. The fight to launch it in India sounds like it was particularly rough. Really intense. India's regulator,

TRAI investigated partners started backing out and the source describes Mark, Cheryl and Joel going into full street fighter mode. What does that mean? Talking about offense versus defense, making enemies lists, actually using the Facebook platform and as algorithms to pressure politicians who oppose them. Well, leveraging the platform itself. Mark apparently called it a turning point.

The author tried to push back internally, but a war room was set up. Millions spent on ads, including targeted dark posts you wouldn't see unless you were targeted.

Trying to create the appearance of public support. There's a detail about offering free T-shirts for protesters. Yeah, apparently promising free T-shirts to get people to show up and protest in favor of free basics. That's something. And then trying to get 17 million identical comments submitted to the regulator with Elliott reportedly persuading TRAI to just take them on a flash drive just shows the length they go to.

All this intense pressure, it must have taken a huge personal toll on the author. Immense. The source details real physical and emotional strain. Cheryl's behavior is described as unpredictable. There's that incident on the private jet. Right. After the author worked late, Cheryl told her to come to bed. Yeah. Yeah.

And contrasting that with an earlier flight where the author apparently snored and the crew put a tent around her, it just highlights this really unsettling power dynamic. And she also mentions Cheryl's assistant, Sadie.

being asked to try on lingerie. Right, and to stay over. Sadie was reportedly incredibly stressed by it all and was eventually counseled by others to leave the role. It paints a picture very different from the public lean-in persona. Very different. The author realized after that jet incident that Cheryl might just write her off, which was terrifying as she was pregnant and the main breadwinner. And her maternity leave.

Sounds like anything but a break. Far from it. She worked through parts of it and then got negative feedback related to her baby being heard on calls. Seriously. And even an incident where her nanny got locked out and a firefighter had to break in that was apparently brought up in her performance review. That's unbelievable. It really shows the company's expectations. It kind of rips away the facade of work-life balance, especially for senior women. Their ability to manage often relied on significant personal wealth for things like 90%

night nannies, which others apparently chipped in for so the author could get back to work. And she had a serious health issue after birth. A severe hemorrhage. She was still losing blood when she went back, hiding it from her husband. Oh my God. And despite this and her fear of hemorrhaging again on a long flight, Joel reportedly pressured her to go to an off-site in India, which sounded mostly like tourism. She describes him asking about the source of her bleeding on a video call. That's just...

invasive and awful. And H.R. apparently knew she'd work during her leave. It sounds like a really brutal environment to come back to. And this is happening around the time of the 2016 U.S. election. Right. The author wanted to shift focus, start fixing Facebook's election integrity systems, looking ahead to global elections like Germany's.

She saw the writing on the wall. But Joel wasn't interested. Dismissed it, reportedly. Said the U.S. team handled the U.S. election, called the country she worked with tin pot. Tin pot countries. Yeah. And according to the source, the priority for Joel seemed to be maximizing revenue from the Trump campaign, even if it included misinformation and trolling. He apparently saw outrage and, well, stretching the truth as possible.

just politics. What about after the election, that meeting about Trump's victory? Joel and Elliott reportedly organized it, trying to preempt the kind of internal meltdown seen in the London office after Brexit.

It was clearly a tense, difficult moment for the largely Democratic staff. Then there's the APEC summit in Peru. That sounds like another key moment. The author saw it as a chance for Mark to actually engage with world leaders, maybe get challenged, learn about wielding power responsibly, like a dry run for being a head of state.

But it didn't quite work out. Started with him forgetting his passport. Yeah, that wasn't a great start. And the big meeting with leaders turned into a bubble bath, as she puts it. Softball questions like, how do we build the next Facebook here? Not the reckoning she'd hoped for. And his reaction to Obama, calling him a lame duck. Right.

Right. And apparently being quite angry after meeting with Obama later. And then there's that sellers of Catan game on the flight home where Mark accused her of cheating. Yeah. And she actually pushed back, showed him the winning moves he'd missed. It's very revealing about his competitiveness, maybe not being used to being directly challenged like that. So the author felt this

This whole trip was a turning point for Mark, potentially towards running for president. That was her interpretation. Yeah. She pieces it together. He was angry about Facebook getting blamed for the election, but also saw through Elliott's explanation of the Trump campaign's tactics just how powerful the platform was. APEC boosted his ego, chairing world leaders. Obama's criticism felt personal, making him petulant. And the conclusion was? Her dark thought was...

He looked at all this and thought, "If Trump can do it, so can I," which apparently led to discussions about the requirements for running. And his vision for media: dominating and crushing it. Reportedly, yes. Seeing traditional media in a death spiral, Elliott even floated the idea of Facebook as a fifth estate. It suggests a leader may be considering an even bigger stage.

All of this must have deepened her disillusionment. Absolutely. Seeing people who raise concerns leave while those who enabled the leadership got rewarded with astonishing amounts of money. Her own financial situation with equity tying her there as the main earner made it complicated. She mentions the FFC, Women Discussing Harassment. Yeah, the Facebook Finance Committee acronym being used discreetly by women for sensitive discussions.

And a coworker warning her about a specific man. It hints at these underlying currents. A growing sense that money and power trumped ethics. That seems to be the feeling.

Which leads to her breaking point. Triggered by Joel's behavior at an event, a sultry comment, getting physically close. That was the final straw. She decided to leave but tried to switch teams first, to work on election integrity. Right, she wanted to move to Javi's team. Javi was supportive, saw the urgency. She felt she could still do good work there. But before that could happen, she confronted Elliot about Joel. She did.

Elliot was apparently dismissive at first, but then seemed to acknowledge, with a nod, that stopping an HR investigation would stop Joel's behavior towards her. But she didn't proceed with the investigation. No. Influenced by a message from Joel about loyalty, she told the investigator not to move forward. And the consequence? Switched retaliation, it sounds like.

Joel reportedly cut her job responsibilities in half with no real explanation beyond he has made a decision. A clear message. Now, one of the more shocking parts of this account is the contrast in how Facebook dealt with different governments.

especially China versus, say, the U.S. It's incredibly stark. On one hand, they're refusing data storage requests from Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, citing worries about government access. Mark's protesting NSA surveillance to Obama. Right. Standard tech company line on privacy. But then they agreed to store Chinese user data in China under their terms. Not just agreed, but actively helped. Helped how? Provided engineers, detailed technical explanations of algorithms, facial recognition,

adapted settings specifically for the Chinese Communist Party. Basically, white glove service, giving China things they denied the U.S. government.

That's hypocritical doesn't seem strong enough. Internal documents apparently showed they knew it looked bad, anticipated the backlash about hypocrisy pushing back on U.S. requests while handing data and tech know-how to China for market access for profit. What was the internal justification? Mark's talking points reportedly argued it was the same constraints as other platforms in China and users would just know not to post sensitive stuff.

The source also details using a fake company address involving an employee's husband in registrations. To obscure Facebook's involvement. Seems like it. There was panic before a New York Times story broke. The apps were shut down, but the employee's name apparently kept appearing on later filings of the government. It really points to profit overriding principles. There was also the emotional targeting scandal.

Right. Analysis out of Australia suggested Facebook could target ads based on users' emotional states, even vulnerable teens. And Facebook's response? Publicly denied using it for targeting.

But internally, the deputy chief privacy officer reportedly confirmed they could do it and were building a tool for advertisers to do it themselves. An ad exec was apparently furious they were denying it, saying this is the business they should shout it from the rooftops. It feels like a pattern of leadership not quite grasping the ethical dimensions or maybe just the optics. That's the impression given. Cheryl reportedly complained interns asked about morality instead of business.

Elliott gave a pep talk about Facebook's moral authority that seemed to miss the point entirely. And the default reaction to criticism remained defensive. Yeah, Mark and Cheryl calling it a witch hunt, scapegoating, pushing that us versus them mentality internally. And this approach had devastating consequences coming back to Myanmar. Just devastating. The source calls it lethal carelessness.

aware of the hate speech against the Rohingya escalating since 2014, but doing nothing significant for years. One content moderator for the whole country. That's what a content team apparently claimed was fine, just incredibly inadequate. The UN report later confirmed Facebook's critical role in spreading hate, including slurs they couldn't even get banned internally for ages. Their public responses often felt weak. Bringing you back to the author's personal experience, she talks about feeling grief and sorrow.

Yeah, this overwhelming sense of grief about how the platform she'd believed in was enabling terrible things, manipulation, oppression, and the realization that for leadership, these huge moral compromises just seemed like

business as usual. And seeing people like Joel continue to rise. Right. The source mentions him showing up supportively at Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, throwing a party afterwards despite employee anger. Him getting promoted, becoming even more powerful, seemed to symbolize how enabling behavior was rewarded. The source also touches briefly on AI, the open versus closed source debate. Yeah, the cold battle over AI. Meta pushing open source models, which

China apparently prefers, while some U.S. experts worry this helps China overtake the U.S. and use AI for spying or cyber attacks, another layer of huge global consequence. And then the end of her time at Facebook, the firing. It sounds incredibly abrupt and cold.

Called into a performance review with Elliot and the chief employment lawyer, described as a quick euthanasia. Laptop confiscated on the spot. Immediately. No chance to get personal things, no goodbyes, walked out by security. The sheer dark irony of her asking Joel for a reference after all that. It's potent. And that final moment.

running into her husband, Tom, right after being fired. Yeah, that shared moment of dark humor and tears over her saying, would you believe this isn't even the worst part of my day? It just perfectly encapsulates the immense toll everything she'd been through. And finally, she reflects on Sheryl Sandberg again. The public image versus private actions on harassment. Exactly. Friends apparently suggested talking to Sheryl, quoting Sheryl's own strong public statements about zero tolerance. But the author felt she couldn't.

So...

Stepping back and looking at this whole account, the arc is just undeniable, isn't it? From that initial idealism about Facebook's power for good. Yeah, through the messy, chaotic, ethically challenging reality of being inside the machine. To this really profound sense of disillusionment and awareness of the personal and societal cost. It hammers home that contrast between the stated mission and the actions observed on the ground. Growth at all costs.

The double standards in dealing with different governments, the approach to employee safety, the ethical lines crossed. And it really centers on her human story, her own resilience being tested, first by that horrific shark attack, then by the psychological and ethical weight of her job. Absolutely. And look, this is just one person's perspective, obviously, but it's a perspective from deep inside during a really crucial time at a company that touches billions of lives. Which leaves us, and you listening, with a really big question, doesn't it?

When you see the power these platforms wield and you read an account like this detailing the complex, sometimes contradictory priorities inside, how do we ensure this technology serves humanity's best interests? Yeah, not just its own growth or bottom line. What's our role as users, as citizens, as regulators in navigating all this? That's definitely something to think about. A question worth diving into for yourself. For sure. Well, thanks for joining us for this deep dive.