On Wednesday, though, Zuckerberg rose to the bait. Perhaps he was feeling particularly confident after Facebook’s earnings crushed Wall Street’s expectations yet again. (Facebook’s stock is now the top performer in the S&P 500 over the past year.) For whatever reason, he seized the opportunity to launch into a monologue about the history and future of privacy on Facebook. You would not have guessed that this was the same man who had dismissed privacy as outmoded just a few years ago.
I’ve transcribed his full response below, because I find it so interesting in contrast to his prior statements. But if you want the tl;dr version, just focus on the three passages I’ve bolded and italicized.
That’s a really important question, and I think it’s something that is misunderstood about Facebook.
One of the things that we focus on the most is creating private spaces for people to share things and have interactions that they couldn’t have had elsewhere. So if you go back to the very beginning of Facebook—rewind 10 years—there were blogs and things where you could be completely public, and there were emails so you could circulate something completely private. But there were no spaces where you could share with just your friends.
It wasn’t a completely private experience, but it’s not completely public: It’s 100 or 150 of the people that you care about. And creating that space, which was a space that had a kind of privacy that no one had ever seen before, was what enabled and continues to enable the kinds of interactions and other content that people feel comfortable sharing in this network.
So we’re looking for new opportunities to create new dynamics like that and open up new, different private spaces for people where they can then feel comfortable sharing and having the freedom to express something to people that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to. It’s one of the reasons I’m personally so excited about messaging. Because at some level there are only so many photos you’re going to want to share with all your friends.
I mean, obviously, we still think there’s more to do there. But the amount of messaging and how quickly we see that growing, it’s crazy. There is just a lot more that people want to express and that they need the tools to express with smaller groups of people—not just one person at a time, but small groups as well. Things like anonymous login totally unlock different behavior. So we view our jobs as, like, very fundamentally providing people with these spaces and tools. Which is very different from how a lot of people think about what Facebook is.
What Zuckerberg doesn’t mention here is that this isn’t just different from how “a lot of people” think about Facebook. It’s also quite different from how Zuckerberg himself used to think about Facebook. There seems to be a bit of history-book-rewriting going on when Zuckerberg explains how privacy was fundamental to Facebook’s success from the beginning.
But that doesn’t make it untrue. Anyone who joined Facebook early on knows Zuckerberg is right that a modicum of privacy was crucial to Facebook’s early success. As former employee Kate Losse chronicled in her 2012 book The Boy Kings, the knowledge that the site was open only to students of elite colleges emboldened people to post things they’d never have dreamed of sharing with the public.
In fact, I’d argue that privacy remained important to the majority of Facebook’s users all along—even through the years when Facebook itself didn’t realize it.
Facebook has succeeded as a business by pushing the boundaries of what people are willing to share, but on several occasions it pushed too far. Users pushed back, and Facebook adjusted, but the missteps did lasting damage to the company’s reputation. It’s now widely understood that no one should post things on Facebook they wouldn’t be comfortable revealing to a wide audience.
Belatedly, Zuckerberg and company are trying to change that. They’ve come to understand that their targeted-advertising business doesn’t necessarily rely on people sharing things with the public. It just relies on them using Facebook’s services as much as possible, so that the company’s software can keep refining its understanding of their behavior and preferences. As Zuckerberg now recognizes, they won’t do that unless they trust Facebook to keep some things to itself.
It’s not inconceivable that people would place such trust in a company that harvests their data for targeted ads. Look at Google, whose hundreds of millions of Gmail and search users have generally accepted a bargain in which software “reads” their most intimate communications, but other humans don’t (except, you know, when they do).
Facebook’s first mega-fortune was built on the backs of extroverts. If there’s to be a next one, Zuckerberg is going to have to get introverts to open their accounts—and their wallets—as well.
This article is part of Future Tense, a collaboration among Arizona State University, the New America Foundation, and Slate. Future Tense explores the ways emerging technologies affect society, policy, and culture. To read more, visit the Future Tense blog and the Future Tense home page. You can also follow us on Twitter.
TODAY IN SLATE
Blacks Don’t Have a Corporal Punishment Problem
I Bought the Huge iPhone. I’m Already Thinking of Returning It.
Scotland Is Just the Beginning. Expect More Political Earthquakes in Europe.
Lifetime Didn’t Think the Steubenville Rape Case Was Dramatic Enough
So they added a little self-immolation.
Two Damn Good, Very Different Movies About Soldiers Returning From War
The Most Terrifying Thing About Ebola
The disease threatens humanity by preying on humanity.