Careless People: Inside Facebook's Failures and Ethics Crisis
Sarah Wynn-Williams' Careless People is a closely observed account of Facebook's ascent to global prominence and the persistent failure of its leadership to recognise or address the implications of that growth. The book avoids the tone of sensational exposé. Its focus is institutional, procedural, and grounded in lived experience. Wynn-Williams served as Facebook's Director of Global Public Policy from 2011 to 2017 and worked directly with Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg on issues relating to foreign governments, regulation, and strategic political risk.
Her entry into the company was self-initiated. At the time, Facebook had no international policy team and no meaningful engagement with foreign state actors. Wynn-Williams identified this as a critical gap, given the company's growing influence over speech, access to information, and political mobilisation. Her proposal was met with limited interest. Executives dismissed the need for a diplomatic or policy-oriented function. Facebook operated with the assumption that global politics would remain peripheral to its business.
Careless People: A Cautionary Tale of Power, Greed, and Lost Idealism
By Sarah Wynn-Williams Flatiron Books, 2025 Pages: 400 Price: Rs.899
This assumption came under strain as the platform became a site for organising political movements and circulating disinformation. The Arab Spring marked a turning point in Facebook's visibility on the international stage. Despite this, Wynn-Williams describes a consistent pattern of reactive decision-making. Policy frameworks were created in response to controversy or regulatory pressure, rather than through internal forecasting or principled planning.
Also Read | Facebook owner Meta is planning a potential Twitter rival
Wynn-Williams presents Mark Zuckerberg as technically capable and highly focused on engineering outcomes, but uninterested in public governance or the ethical consequences of platform decisions. Sheryl Sandberg emerges as more attuned to external perception, although her interventions were framed in communications language and had limited operational impact. There was no sustained effort within the company to develop ethical guidelines for speech, privacy, or civic disruption. Decisions about platform rules were delegated to teams with minimal institutional memory and limited understanding of regional political dynamics.
A controlled, clear account of institutional decay
The book contains an extended reflection on Wynn-Williams' attempts to introduce early-warning systems for geopolitical flashpoints, including proposals for structured risk review processes. Most of these proposals were rejected or deferred. Her colleagues considered them unnecessary, or believed that they would slow the company's capacity to scale. She identifies this tendency as part of a broader problem. The firm viewed growth metrics as the primary indicator of success. Political considerations were treated as reputation management rather than structural concerns. This becomes particularly visible in her account of Myanmar, where Facebook ignored sustained internal warnings about the platform's role in amplifying anti-Rohingya hate speech. Efforts to improve moderation or restrict ethnic slurs were deprioritised, even as user growth accelerated and offline targeted violence intensified.
The narrative is interspersed with personal reflections. Wynn-Williams recounts a near-fatal shark attack at the age of thirteen, an experience that shaped her instinct for survival and confrontation with authority. This personal history informs her view of institutional passivity and her frustration with a corporate culture that consistently deprioritised accountability. Her tone remains composed. She avoids self-pity or moral grandstanding. The result is a controlled and clear account of institutional decay.
The title, drawn from the American writer F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel The Great Gatsby, is used here to describe the behaviour of actors who possess influence without consequences. The carelessness that Wynn-Williams identifies is not incidental. It results from a structural configuration that separates decisions from responsibility. Facebook's platform design encouraged maximal engagement. It offered limited tools for transparency or independent oversight. The leadership considered these conditions necessary for innovation and user retention.
The book advances several contributions to the understanding of global platform governance. First, it documents the internal barriers to reform that exist even when individual employees raise ethical concerns. Second, it describes how private infrastructure has become the default venue for political discourse in many parts of the world. In the absence of external constraints, private platforms make decisions that affect public life without mechanisms for appeal, justification, or contestation. Third, it presents an insider's account of how international policy work is subordinated to domestic business interests, even when the company operates in hundreds of jurisdictions.
No exaggerated conclusions
The book avoids exaggerated conclusions. It presents Facebook as an organisation structured around product development and growth, with limited interest in democratic accountability. It also resists attributing systemic failure to individual malice. Wynn-Williams shows how institutional culture, incentives, and habits of leadership produced outcomes that were difficult to challenge from within.
Careless People contributes to the literature on platform power, digital governance, and institutional design. It complements academic and journalistic work on surveillance capitalism and algorithmic governance by supplying a primary source account of how decision-making unfolded inside a dominant technology firm. It will be of interest to policymakers, scholars, and others concerned with the interaction between corporate platforms and the public sphere.
Also Read | Hire and fire at will: What do global tech lay-offs mean for India?
Wynn-Williams presents no theory of reform. Her aim is to document what happened, how decisions were made, and what structures prevented accountability. The narrative closes without prescriptions. The book serves as evidence of the limits of voluntary ethics in private institutions and the consequences of permitting firms to mediate public communication on a global scale without enforceable obligations.
What Careless People ultimately reveals is how a generation that built the most powerful communication system in human history chose, at every turn, to treat that power as someone else's problem.
John Simte is an advocate based in New Delhi.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a minute ago
- Business Standard
Final nod for ₹62,000 crore deal to procure 97 more Tejas Mk1A jets
The government on Tuesday cleared the Rs 62,000 crore order to procure 97 additional indigenous Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas Mk1A fighter jets from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for the Indian Air Force (IAF), a defence source confirmed. The Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has given its final approval — marking the last step before the formal signing of the deal. The jets will be built by Bengaluru-headquartered HAL, a Maharatna public sector undertaking under the Ministry of Defence. This will mark the second order for the Mk1A fighter jets, with an earlier contract already placed with HAL for 83 aircraft at a cost of Rs 36,400 crore. HAL missed the original February 2024 deadline to start deliveries of the LCA Mk1A, primarily due to delays in the arrival of F404-IN20 engines from the American engine maker GE Aerospace. These jets are intended to replace the last of the IAF's Russian-origin MiG-21s, which are scheduled to retire in September. Amid the IAF's mounting challenges, HAL has assured that 12 Mk1A aircraft will be delivered by the end of 2025-26. The company has already built six, which are currently flying with reserve engines — a temporary measure. The second GE engine for the Mk1A was delivered to HAL in mid-July. The Tejas, an indigenous single-engine, fourth-generation multirole light fighter aircraft, has been developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency. It originates from the LCA programme launched in the 1980s to replace the IAF's ageing MiG-21 fleet — a goal now pursued through the operational Tejas MkI and the planned induction of the more advanced Mk1A variant.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a minute ago
- Business Standard
Gaming bodies seek Amit Shah's intervention to stop RMG ban in India
In a joint letter, online skill gaming associations have sought Home Minister Amit Shah's intervention against a proposed Bill seeking to ban all forms of real-money games (RMGs) in India, warning that the move could force over 400 companies to shut down and put more than 200,000 jobs at risk. Industry bodies — the All India Gaming Federation (AIGF), the E-Gaming Federation (EGF), and the Federation of Indian Fantasy Sports (FIFS) — said a blanket prohibition on the platforms would 'strike a death knell' for the industry. The bodies have requested a meeting with the Home Minister's office. They cautioned that a blanket ban could drive millions of Indian users to offshore entities, fly-by-night operators, and matka networks — platforms that operate outside any legal framework, lack safeguards, and are prone to unsafe practices. The proposal to impose an absolute prohibition on such platforms comes at a time when there are close to 500 million gamers in India, with the sector having attracted foreign direct investment (FDI) of more than Rs 25,000 crore, as per industry estimates. Major companies in the sector include Dream11, Games24x7, Junglee Games, Mobile Premier League (MPL), Head Digital Works, Zupee, Gameskraft, and Nazara Technologies, among others. 'The only beneficiary of this Bill will be the illegal offshore gambling operators. If legitimate Indian businesses are shut down, unregulated actors will fill the vacuum. This will erode state and national tax revenues while leaving Indian users exposed to unregulated platforms,' the joint letter said. They added that online skill gaming could contribute to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's vision of a $1-trillion digital economy. The government has finalised a draft legislation to ban all forms of online RMG in India and will introduce it in Parliament on Wednesday. The draft Bill, cleared by the Union Cabinet on Tuesday, is likely to bar 'offering, aiding, abetting, inducing, or otherwise in the offering of any online money gaming service' and declares it an offence. Aimed at curbing the sharp spike in online gaming addiction among children and youth, which has triggered mental health issues and financial losses, the Bill also bans any person and advertisement from promoting online money games. Furthermore, the draft Bill proposes that banks, financial institutions, or any other person should not facilitate transactions related to online real-money games.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
a minute ago
- Business Standard
Silicon Valley needs to get over its obsession with superhuman AI
Building a machine more intelligent than ourselves. It's a centuries-old theme, inspiring equal amounts of awe and dread, from the agents in 'The Matrix' to the operating system in 'Her.' To many in Silicon Valley, this compelling fictional motif is on the verge of becoming reality. Reaching artificial general intelligence, or A.G.I. (or going a step further, superintelligence), is now the singular aim of America's tech giants, which are investing tens of billions of dollars in a fevered race. And while some experts warn of disastrous consequences from the advent of A.G.I., many also argue that this breakthrough, perhaps just years away, will lead to a productivity explosion, with the nation and company that get there first reaping all the benefits. This frenzy gives us pause. It is uncertain how soon artificial general intelligence can be achieved. We worry that Silicon Valley has grown so enamored with accomplishing this goal that it's alienating the general public and, worse, bypassing crucial opportunities to use the technology that already exists. In being solely fixated on this objective, our nation risks falling behind China, which is far less concerned with creating A.I. powerful enough to surpass humans and much more focused on using the technology we have now. The roots of Silicon Valley's fascination with artificial general intelligence go back decades. In 1950 the computing pioneer Alan Turing proposed the imitation game, a test in which a machine proves its intelligence by how well it can fool human interrogators into believing it's human. In the years since, the idea has evolved, but the goal has stayed constant: to match the power of a human brain. A.G.I. is simply the latest iteration. In 1965, Mr. Turing's colleague I.J. Good described what's so captivating about the idea of a machine as sophisticated as the human brain. Mr. Good saw that smart machines could recursively self-improve faster than humans could ever catch up, saying, 'The first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make.' The invention to end all other inventions. In short, reaching A.G.I. would be the most significant commercial opportunity in history. Little wonder that the world's top talents are all devoting themselves to this ambitious endeavor. The current modus operandi is build at all cost. Every tech giant is in the race to reach A.G.I. first, erecting data centers that can cost more than $100 billion and with some like Meta offering signing bonuses to A.I. researchers that top $100 million. The costs of training foundation models, which serve as a general-purpose base for many different tasks, have continued to rise. Elon Musk's start-up xAI is reportedly burning through $1 billion a month. Anthropic's chief executive, Dario Amodei, expects training costs of leading models to go up to $10 billion or even $100 billion in the next two years. To be sure, A.I. is already better than the average human at many cognitive tasks, from answering some of the world's hardest solvable math problems to writing code at the level of a junior developer. Enthusiasts point to such progress as evidence that A.G.I. is just around the corner. Still, while A.I. capabilities have made extraordinary leaps since the debut of ChatGPT in 2022, science has yet to find a clear path to building intelligence that surpasses humans. In a recent survey of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, an academic society that includes some of the most respected researchers in the field, more than three-quarters of the 475 respondents said our current approaches were unlikely to lead to a breakthrough. While A.I. has continued to improve as the models get larger and ingest more data, there's concern that the exponential growth curve might falter. Experts have argued that we need new computing architectures beyond what underpins large language models to reach the goal. The challenge with our focus on A.G.I. goes beyond the technology and into the vague, conflicting narratives that accompany it. Both grave and optimistic predictions abound. This year the nonprofit AI Futures Project released 'A.I. 2027,' a report that predicted superintelligent A.I. potentially controlling or exterminating humans by 2030. Around the same time, computer scientists at Princeton published a paper titled 'A.I. as Normal Technology,' arguing that A.I. will remain manageable for the foreseeable future, like nuclear power. That's how we get to this strange place where Silicon Valley's biggest companies proclaim ever shorter timelines for how soon A.G.I. will arrive, while most people outside the Bay Area still barely know what that term means. There's a widening schism between the technologists who feel the A.G.I. — a mantra for believers who see themselves on the cusp of the technology — and members of the general public who are skeptical about the hype and see A.I. as a nuisance in their daily lives. With some experts issuing dire warnings about A.I., the public is naturally even less enthused about the technology. Now let's look at what's happening in China. The country's scientists and policymakers aren't as A.G.I.-pilled as their American counterparts. At the recent World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai, Premier Li Qiang of China emphasized 'the deep integration of A.I. with the real economy' by expanding application scenarios. While some Silicon Valley technologists issue doomsday warnings about the grave threat of A.I., Chinese companies are busy integrating it into everything from the superapp WeChat to hospitals, electric cars and even home appliances. In rural villages, competitions among Chinese farmers have been held to improve A.I. tools for harvest; Alibaba's Quark app recently became China's most downloaded A.I. assistant in part because of its medical diagnostic capabilities. Last year China started the A.I.+ initiative, which aims to embed A.I. across sectors to raise productivity. It's no surprise that the Chinese population is more optimistic about A.I. as a result. At the World A.I. Conference, we saw families with grandparents and young children milling about the exhibits, gasping at powerful displays of A.I. applications and enthusiastically interacting with humanoid robots. Over three-quarters of adults in China said that A.I. has profoundly changed their daily lives in the past three to five years, according to an Ipsos survey. That's the highest share globally and double that of Americans. Another recent poll found that only 32 percent of Americans say they trust A.I., compared with 72 percent in China. Many of the purported benefits of A.G.I. — in science, education, health care and the like — can already be achieved with the careful refinement and use of powerful existing models. For example, why do we still not have a product that teaches all humans essential, cutting-edge knowledge in their own languages in personalized, gamified ways? Why are there no competitions among American farmers to use A.I. tools to improve their harvests? Where's the Cambrian explosion of imaginative, unexpected uses of A.I. to improve lives in the West? The belief in an A.G.I. or superintelligence tipping point flies in the face of the history of technology, in which progress and diffusion have been incremental. Technology often takes decades to reach widespread use. The modern internet was invented in 1983, but it wasn't until the early 2000s that it reshaped business models. And although ChatGPT has seen incredible user growth, a recent working paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research showed that most people in the United States still use generative A.I. infrequently. When a technology eventually goes mainstream, that's when it's truly game changing. Smartphones got the world online not because of the most powerful, sleekest versions; the revolution happened because cheap, adequately capable devices proliferated across the globe, finding their way into the hands of villagers and street vendors. It's paramount that more people outside Silicon Valley feel the beneficial impact of A.I. on their lives. A.G.I. isn't a finish line; it's a process that involves humble, gradual, uneven diffusion of generations of less powerful A.I. across society. Instead of only asking 'Are we there yet?' it's time we recognize that A.I. is already a powerful agent of change. Applying and adapting the machine intelligence that's currently available will start a flywheel of more public enthusiasm for A.I. And as the frontier advances, so should our uses of the technology. While America's flagship tech companies race to the uncertain goal of getting to artificial general intelligence first, China and its leadership have been more focused on deploying existing technology across traditional and emerging sectors, from manufacturing and agriculture to robotics and drones. Being too fixated on artificial general intelligence risks distracting us from A.I.'s everyday impact. We need to pursue both.
