This essay resonates deeply, not just as an analysis of Meta’s impact, but as a larger meditation on power, disillusionment, and the systems that shape us. The realization that Facebook’s dismantling of authority wasn’t an accident, but a strategy, echoes a much older pattern: the colonial logic of destabilization as a means of control. Whether through empire-building, corporate monopolies, or algorithmic governance, the playbook remains the same—disrupt existing structures, create dependency, and consolidate power while the chaos obscures the architect’s hand.
There’s also something important in the way you describe the emotional and psychological toll of witnessing this unraveling, both within the company and in yourself. Trauma studies teaches us that systemic harm doesn’t just impact societies abstractly—it embeds itself in bodies, in ways of thinking, in how we process information and relate to the world. The "authority vacuum" you describe isn’t just external; it seeps into our sense of reality, making it harder to trust, to discern, to feel anchored. Zuckerberg may model himself after Augustus, but this isn’t just about one man’s imperial ambition. It’s about a system that rewards fragmentation because fractured people are easier to manage.
Your shift toward personal resistance—disengaging from platforms designed to manipulate, seeking out unfiltered journalism, focusing on hyperlocal action—is powerful because it’s not just a rejection of the chaos; it’s a reorientation toward agency. There’s something deeply decolonial in that move. As much as these platforms want to convince us that they are the infrastructure of human connection, they are not. There have always been other ways of knowing, relating, and building futures—ways that long predate the digital empire. Your grandfather’s words about the world being made new each day remind me that this isn’t just about breaking free from social media’s grip; it’s about reclaiming how we imagine and create what comes next.
Thank you for this piece—it’s not just a critique, but an act of remembering, and that is where transformation begins.
I actually love substack for that. It's a space to have real conversations and reflect, properly. In the spirit of growth and relationality (ie: we're all in it together). Thanks for all the great work you do! xx
Agency, self-determination, freedom of choice, and freedom of conscience all point to what might really be our most fundamental, truly inalienable right. On some level, we all have the right to make choices. Subverting that right is a crime against our very humanity, I think.
The tragic thing about these oligarchs is that they really think they're doing the right thing. They think the world will teeter into chaos unless they alone control the reins. The idolization of Augustus is perfectly revealing of their psychosis: they believe they are saving humanity, which is terrifying because it will allow them to justify any manner of awful things, when they believe in such a righteous crusade.
I work in making print newspapers and the process makes me happy. Every night we rush to get the papers out to the trucks; the rush is just culture now because the news in them are already old. But every day it makes me happy. Stories written down and set in ink, curated and written by real people, even typos unable to be changed later. Context always clear; name of the publicaton, a date, a first page and the last. Enough news for one day for one mind. More news to follow tomorrow.
I love the internet, and I love the interesting stories I get to read like this one. Thank you for writing it. Maybe the dark ages are upon us. We'll have to move slow and fix things for a while.
This was always clear. I graduated with a CS degree in 2003 and avoided the company from the start. I didn't join as a user until maybe 2009 and never used it much and quit entirely in maybe 2011 when every 3 months he'd change the settings and default you back to share everything always anytime anywhere from the site or anywhere FB was tracking you with anyone everywhere always. It happened over and over and over. The guy has always been a megalomaniac narcissist asshole who cares about nothing but self aggrandizement and getting to feel superior and condescending to everyone. It's revisionism to pretend it wasn't always clear.
I'm just saying, just because you joined a cult didn't mean it wasn't clear to everyone else the guy was an evil cult leader. I mean the first thing he did was a hot or not site of his classmates to feel cooler than the boys who didn't like him and make the girls feel like sex objects who weren't sexy enough.
If I remember correctly, a New York Times Magazine article years ago was very pointed in declaring that the creation of the first iteration of Facebook was a direct result of Zuckerberg and fellow "nerds" being rejected by more than a few girls on campus while still at Harvard. . Facebook was always an evil revenge project at its core. He implemented public humiliation to gain power and to soothe his bruised ego. How many fragile male egos must this world suffer for? I applaud Natalie's disengaging from the platforms; reading books will forever feed our souls. Support your local library and book shop for your daily dose of happy.
This essay is an excellent example of the value of a liberal arts education. English and history majors would never be this naive about the impact of a platform with such power to amplify scoundrels right along with the mensches. We are learning the value of the humanities by their absence, by the lack of their influence. We must discover that wisdom again.
This is so well written Natalie.I was plugged in from the start. Agree with everything you've put down. Your realisation about it being about power is spot on. I feel incredibly naive in not ascertaining it before. It was clear Zuckerberg really wasn't messing around from the get go which makes it all the more obvious in hindsight. Also I REALLY enjoyed the photo of you in the background of the new York times article. That's actually really cool
The idea of the "dark ages" has mostly been discredited by historians, with a big asterix: things really did change and there really was a decline in production and population. But the misunderstanding of history is the key to seeing how your essay goes off the rails a bit. Democracy is not a static, unchanging object. The 20th century agency state was dominant over society in a way that has almost no historical parallels. Is that democracy? Yes, but unrecognizable to a 18th century democracy. Social media works differently than traditional media and is creating a new kind of democracy.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment! Yes, you’re right that democracy is not static. But I’m disturbed by the idea that any one person could have such an impact in shaping a “new kind of democracy” into his favor.
It's definitely a scary time. Hopefully the new system will be stable and cannot be overthrown as easily. There's no guarantees for that. I'm hopeful because the USA has been through so many transitions before under imperial presidents such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR that we should survive this one. But all of those times involved massive tragedies.
What are you talking about? Imperial presidents like Washington, Lincoln, and FDR? Do you hate this country that much that you’re cheering on the burning of its foundations?
Im talking about American history and the role of the Executive. Those Presidents all did things unimaginable today. Washington mobilized the military against US citizens who had their land stolen by corrupt courts. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, which is a constitutional right. FDR threatened to stuff the Supreme Court unless they allowed his clearly unconstitutional policies, and they did cave. We both know why you skipped Jackson :-). These are the foundations of the country - Trump is just an continuation of American traditions.
To me social media - as they are right now - don’t advance democracy but the wealthbof few and the confusion of many. That said, I think it’s not the idea of social media but the business model it has developed. It furthers a dialogue where the loud will always beat the good.
The same things, enrichment of the few and the miseducation of the masses, can be said about the previous democratic system. Most people did not know or understand how deeply the US government was integrated into global media. I suggest a place to start is the book "Manufacturing Consent" from 1988, which describes a system with roots from more than half a century earlier. To be clear, I don't believe democracy is a perfect system, I'm a voluntarily. However it's definitely much more pragmatic and realistic given human nature.
Thanks for your impulse. And I know that book. But After having lived through nearly 60 years now (and having earned all my money with digital media) I am really convinced that „manufacturing consent“ must be the aim of any democratic dialogue. If you loose that a consensus reality you end up in the vacuum described in this essay - and you lose the ability to deal with challenges. We shouldn’t confuse … confusion 😉 with freedom. (And sorry if not everything becomes clear. I am German and currently writing without my AI buddy 😎).
Yes, we agree on democratic dialogue. But then necessarily democracy will always empower and enrich a few.
We partly agree about nihilism. Because we're in a transition period, there's a high risk of bad outcomes. I do believe its inevitable, since it's a change driven by technology. I also don't believe it is any worse than the previous system - it's hard for me to view Zuckerberg's position as a social media algorithm manipulator as any different from traditional newsroom editing. So far Zuckerberg seems to be using his power responsibly. I mean this very broadly as in there's no ongoing violent civil war in the USA nor any ethnic cleansing. But because the situation is unstable, the wrong person or wrong decision can have much worse consequences than usual. At least for a few years, there's no safety wheels.
Thank you for this. I recently left FB & IG, after a few years of feeling increasingly like they weren’t platforms that had my best interests at heart (the way I’d believed at the beginning). What you’ve shared here helped crystallize that for me. (I wrote a related post called Why I’m Breaking Up with Social Media.)
This is an incredible piece. Thank you for sharing it. I remember receiving the same presentation at orientation in 2018. The indoctrination was real. I’m thankful for your perspective. It makes me feel less gaslit by myself, who often thinks (still), my failure there was somehow a comment on my own abilities and skills. So much to think about in you this. I’ll be returning to this to read again, I know.
I guess the thing I'd offer here is - after the fall of the Roman Empire, there was plenty of great stuff happening in Africa, Asia, the Muslim world. If we de-centre ourselves, we might feel a bit less desperate as we move along. And yay, yes, to hyperlocal living and activism. We'll all get through this, whatever foolishness USA and Europe are getting caught up in right now.
Obviously, the effects of this were far more reaching and damaging at FB, but one of the things I'm still grappling with from my own time in tech is the "we're going to make the world better" greenwashing that's so insidious throughout the industry. So much energy invested in getting employees to drink the kool-aid, but then when you look at the nature of the work itself it's like...increasing ad impressions or increasing time spent in app 🫠 Even the so-called "good guys" do this.
I'm still not sure what to do with any of this myself, but I've found myself gravitating towards companies and products that aren't as grandiose with their mission and are more realistic and down-to-earth with what they're trying to achieve (and probably doing more real good as a result).
What a great read. Thank you for sharing your experiences so eloquently. I especially love the image of your grandfather and the phrase: "The essay kept collapsing on itself, like a poorly made vase on a pottery wheel."
Thank you for this fascinating piece. From a craft perspective (can’t help myself, was once a writing professor) I was VERY impressed by all the threads you brought together and managed to resolve. As a writer sometimes I feel like I can’t handle trying to juggle too many things, so I’m amazed and inspired. Terrified by what it reveals but somehow not surprised. A person (me) wants to believe that at heart humans are kind and want to build up the collective rather than squash it…and often I am wrong, unfortunately.
Thank you so much for saying this – I wish I had craft advice, but it took me five years to pull all the threads together. And, to your last point, I can confirm that nearly everyone I worked with at Meta genuinely was kind, and genuinely were trying to build up the collective. We just didn't realize who were serving until it was too late.
That makes the whole story even sadder. That the people doing the actual work wanted to make the world better, it was just in the service of someone who didn’t. So glad I caught your piece in my feed!
You really nailed my sentiment about what is happening, but much more eloquently. I remember when someone who hit their 10yr anniversary got up to tell a memory about FB's early days. He told of Mark playing Risk after hours with employees and how he would play for all or nothing. It was a funny story the way he told it, but in hindsight it was a deadly serious strategy.
This essay resonates deeply, not just as an analysis of Meta’s impact, but as a larger meditation on power, disillusionment, and the systems that shape us. The realization that Facebook’s dismantling of authority wasn’t an accident, but a strategy, echoes a much older pattern: the colonial logic of destabilization as a means of control. Whether through empire-building, corporate monopolies, or algorithmic governance, the playbook remains the same—disrupt existing structures, create dependency, and consolidate power while the chaos obscures the architect’s hand.
There’s also something important in the way you describe the emotional and psychological toll of witnessing this unraveling, both within the company and in yourself. Trauma studies teaches us that systemic harm doesn’t just impact societies abstractly—it embeds itself in bodies, in ways of thinking, in how we process information and relate to the world. The "authority vacuum" you describe isn’t just external; it seeps into our sense of reality, making it harder to trust, to discern, to feel anchored. Zuckerberg may model himself after Augustus, but this isn’t just about one man’s imperial ambition. It’s about a system that rewards fragmentation because fractured people are easier to manage.
Your shift toward personal resistance—disengaging from platforms designed to manipulate, seeking out unfiltered journalism, focusing on hyperlocal action—is powerful because it’s not just a rejection of the chaos; it’s a reorientation toward agency. There’s something deeply decolonial in that move. As much as these platforms want to convince us that they are the infrastructure of human connection, they are not. There have always been other ways of knowing, relating, and building futures—ways that long predate the digital empire. Your grandfather’s words about the world being made new each day remind me that this isn’t just about breaking free from social media’s grip; it’s about reclaiming how we imagine and create what comes next.
Thank you for this piece—it’s not just a critique, but an act of remembering, and that is where transformation begins.
Thank you for this comment, which feels like an essay in itself! It’s so thoughtful.
I actually love substack for that. It's a space to have real conversations and reflect, properly. In the spirit of growth and relationality (ie: we're all in it together). Thanks for all the great work you do! xx
Agency, self-determination, freedom of choice, and freedom of conscience all point to what might really be our most fundamental, truly inalienable right. On some level, we all have the right to make choices. Subverting that right is a crime against our very humanity, I think.
If I could put my thoughts about this article into words: I’d use yours. Thanks
The tragic thing about these oligarchs is that they really think they're doing the right thing. They think the world will teeter into chaos unless they alone control the reins. The idolization of Augustus is perfectly revealing of their psychosis: they believe they are saving humanity, which is terrifying because it will allow them to justify any manner of awful things, when they believe in such a righteous crusade.
Exactly. Three mentalities that if a person has will justify terrible behaviors: the victim mentality, the savior mentality, and the zealot.
I work in making print newspapers and the process makes me happy. Every night we rush to get the papers out to the trucks; the rush is just culture now because the news in them are already old. But every day it makes me happy. Stories written down and set in ink, curated and written by real people, even typos unable to be changed later. Context always clear; name of the publicaton, a date, a first page and the last. Enough news for one day for one mind. More news to follow tomorrow.
I love the internet, and I love the interesting stories I get to read like this one. Thank you for writing it. Maybe the dark ages are upon us. We'll have to move slow and fix things for a while.
Move slow and fix things! Indeed
This is my new life motto
This was always clear. I graduated with a CS degree in 2003 and avoided the company from the start. I didn't join as a user until maybe 2009 and never used it much and quit entirely in maybe 2011 when every 3 months he'd change the settings and default you back to share everything always anytime anywhere from the site or anywhere FB was tracking you with anyone everywhere always. It happened over and over and over. The guy has always been a megalomaniac narcissist asshole who cares about nothing but self aggrandizement and getting to feel superior and condescending to everyone. It's revisionism to pretend it wasn't always clear.
I’m glad it was clear to you - I can assure you that most employees were fully brainwashed and couldn’t wake up until we left.
I'm just saying, just because you joined a cult didn't mean it wasn't clear to everyone else the guy was an evil cult leader. I mean the first thing he did was a hot or not site of his classmates to feel cooler than the boys who didn't like him and make the girls feel like sex objects who weren't sexy enough.
If I remember correctly, a New York Times Magazine article years ago was very pointed in declaring that the creation of the first iteration of Facebook was a direct result of Zuckerberg and fellow "nerds" being rejected by more than a few girls on campus while still at Harvard. . Facebook was always an evil revenge project at its core. He implemented public humiliation to gain power and to soothe his bruised ego. How many fragile male egos must this world suffer for? I applaud Natalie's disengaging from the platforms; reading books will forever feed our souls. Support your local library and book shop for your daily dose of happy.
Yeah… you haven’t woken yet.
This essay is an excellent example of the value of a liberal arts education. English and history majors would never be this naive about the impact of a platform with such power to amplify scoundrels right along with the mensches. We are learning the value of the humanities by their absence, by the lack of their influence. We must discover that wisdom again.
I agree with you, but I was an English major. 😂
Ah, then you were led astray for a time. But it’s that foundation that gave you these insights. 😊
This is so well written Natalie.I was plugged in from the start. Agree with everything you've put down. Your realisation about it being about power is spot on. I feel incredibly naive in not ascertaining it before. It was clear Zuckerberg really wasn't messing around from the get go which makes it all the more obvious in hindsight. Also I REALLY enjoyed the photo of you in the background of the new York times article. That's actually really cool
The idea of the "dark ages" has mostly been discredited by historians, with a big asterix: things really did change and there really was a decline in production and population. But the misunderstanding of history is the key to seeing how your essay goes off the rails a bit. Democracy is not a static, unchanging object. The 20th century agency state was dominant over society in a way that has almost no historical parallels. Is that democracy? Yes, but unrecognizable to a 18th century democracy. Social media works differently than traditional media and is creating a new kind of democracy.
Thank you for this thoughtful comment! Yes, you’re right that democracy is not static. But I’m disturbed by the idea that any one person could have such an impact in shaping a “new kind of democracy” into his favor.
It's definitely a scary time. Hopefully the new system will be stable and cannot be overthrown as easily. There's no guarantees for that. I'm hopeful because the USA has been through so many transitions before under imperial presidents such as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR that we should survive this one. But all of those times involved massive tragedies.
What are you talking about? Imperial presidents like Washington, Lincoln, and FDR? Do you hate this country that much that you’re cheering on the burning of its foundations?
Im talking about American history and the role of the Executive. Those Presidents all did things unimaginable today. Washington mobilized the military against US citizens who had their land stolen by corrupt courts. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, which is a constitutional right. FDR threatened to stuff the Supreme Court unless they allowed his clearly unconstitutional policies, and they did cave. We both know why you skipped Jackson :-). These are the foundations of the country - Trump is just an continuation of American traditions.
(or, in today’s case, six or seven of them.)
To me social media - as they are right now - don’t advance democracy but the wealthbof few and the confusion of many. That said, I think it’s not the idea of social media but the business model it has developed. It furthers a dialogue where the loud will always beat the good.
The same things, enrichment of the few and the miseducation of the masses, can be said about the previous democratic system. Most people did not know or understand how deeply the US government was integrated into global media. I suggest a place to start is the book "Manufacturing Consent" from 1988, which describes a system with roots from more than half a century earlier. To be clear, I don't believe democracy is a perfect system, I'm a voluntarily. However it's definitely much more pragmatic and realistic given human nature.
Thanks for your impulse. And I know that book. But After having lived through nearly 60 years now (and having earned all my money with digital media) I am really convinced that „manufacturing consent“ must be the aim of any democratic dialogue. If you loose that a consensus reality you end up in the vacuum described in this essay - and you lose the ability to deal with challenges. We shouldn’t confuse … confusion 😉 with freedom. (And sorry if not everything becomes clear. I am German and currently writing without my AI buddy 😎).
Yes, we agree on democratic dialogue. But then necessarily democracy will always empower and enrich a few.
We partly agree about nihilism. Because we're in a transition period, there's a high risk of bad outcomes. I do believe its inevitable, since it's a change driven by technology. I also don't believe it is any worse than the previous system - it's hard for me to view Zuckerberg's position as a social media algorithm manipulator as any different from traditional newsroom editing. So far Zuckerberg seems to be using his power responsibly. I mean this very broadly as in there's no ongoing violent civil war in the USA nor any ethnic cleansing. But because the situation is unstable, the wrong person or wrong decision can have much worse consequences than usual. At least for a few years, there's no safety wheels.
So true… Sooo true!
I referenced your post in mine. Thanks again! https://atenderspace.substack.com/p/lets-not-let-them-destabilize-us
Thank you for this. I recently left FB & IG, after a few years of feeling increasingly like they weren’t platforms that had my best interests at heart (the way I’d believed at the beginning). What you’ve shared here helped crystallize that for me. (I wrote a related post called Why I’m Breaking Up with Social Media.)
This is an incredible piece. Thank you for sharing it. I remember receiving the same presentation at orientation in 2018. The indoctrination was real. I’m thankful for your perspective. It makes me feel less gaslit by myself, who often thinks (still), my failure there was somehow a comment on my own abilities and skills. So much to think about in you this. I’ll be returning to this to read again, I know.
I guess the thing I'd offer here is - after the fall of the Roman Empire, there was plenty of great stuff happening in Africa, Asia, the Muslim world. If we de-centre ourselves, we might feel a bit less desperate as we move along. And yay, yes, to hyperlocal living and activism. We'll all get through this, whatever foolishness USA and Europe are getting caught up in right now.
Thank you for writing this.
Obviously, the effects of this were far more reaching and damaging at FB, but one of the things I'm still grappling with from my own time in tech is the "we're going to make the world better" greenwashing that's so insidious throughout the industry. So much energy invested in getting employees to drink the kool-aid, but then when you look at the nature of the work itself it's like...increasing ad impressions or increasing time spent in app 🫠 Even the so-called "good guys" do this.
I'm still not sure what to do with any of this myself, but I've found myself gravitating towards companies and products that aren't as grandiose with their mission and are more realistic and down-to-earth with what they're trying to achieve (and probably doing more real good as a result).
Yes, same! I’m working for an employee-owned social purposes corporation now and it is so refreshing.
What a great read. Thank you for sharing your experiences so eloquently. I especially love the image of your grandfather and the phrase: "The essay kept collapsing on itself, like a poorly made vase on a pottery wheel."
Thank you for this fascinating piece. From a craft perspective (can’t help myself, was once a writing professor) I was VERY impressed by all the threads you brought together and managed to resolve. As a writer sometimes I feel like I can’t handle trying to juggle too many things, so I’m amazed and inspired. Terrified by what it reveals but somehow not surprised. A person (me) wants to believe that at heart humans are kind and want to build up the collective rather than squash it…and often I am wrong, unfortunately.
Thank you so much for saying this – I wish I had craft advice, but it took me five years to pull all the threads together. And, to your last point, I can confirm that nearly everyone I worked with at Meta genuinely was kind, and genuinely were trying to build up the collective. We just didn't realize who were serving until it was too late.
That makes the whole story even sadder. That the people doing the actual work wanted to make the world better, it was just in the service of someone who didn’t. So glad I caught your piece in my feed!
Thank you for writing this ❤️
You really nailed my sentiment about what is happening, but much more eloquently. I remember when someone who hit their 10yr anniversary got up to tell a memory about FB's early days. He told of Mark playing Risk after hours with employees and how he would play for all or nothing. It was a funny story the way he told it, but in hindsight it was a deadly serious strategy.