The loneliness of Mark Zuckerberg

By choosing to take no action against incendiary posts by US President Donald Trump, Mark Zuckerberg has found himself increasingly isolated. Photo / AP

He is one of the world's richest and most powerful men, but Mark Zuckerberg appears increasingly isolated from his peers.

How lonely is Mark Zuckerberg right now? Though he is doubtless being kept busy by his company's response to America's worst period of civil unrest since 1968, the past two weeks have left him suddenly divided from peers, allies and his business partners.

By choosing to take no action against incendiary posts by US President Donald Trump – on the grounds that Facebook should always err on the side of free expression and political neutrality – the 35-year-old founder has parted ways with fellow tech moguls such as Twitter's Jack Dorsey and Snapchat's Evan Spiegel.

But he has also incurred a schism with scientists funded by his charity, Washington DC think tanks formerly funded by Facebook grants, and Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate who is now actively campaigning against him.

One small firm, Talkspace, said it was sacrificing hundreds of thousands of dollars by pulling out of a contract to provide free therapy for some Facebook users. Employees believe that this is the biggest challenge to Zuckerberg's leadership that he has ever faced.

'A hail of fire'

"This has been a hail of fire for him," says Eric Schiffer, chairman of the California-based Reputation Management Consultants. "Zuckerberg has made choices, in what I'm sure he believes to be the best interests of Facebook's long-term growth, that have created a level of excruciating isolation for him – which comes not just from the public but from inside his own organisation."

Among the biggest blows has come from advertisers, who have defected in unprecedented numbers. Large companies including Nike and Anheuser-Busch slashed their Facebook and Instagram spending, while smaller ones have boycotted the service totally.

Simris, a Swedish algae-growing firm, said it could no longer "enable a sick system" despite being "vitally dependent" on digital ads. Meanwhile, of course, the Trump campaign continued to pour in money. According to the analytics firm Pathmatics, he and his supporters were the 10th largest spender last month.

The crisis has led to frenetic activity in Facebook's upper ranks, with its chief marketing liaison Carolyn Everson admitting she had spent more time with Zuckerberg in the first week of June than ever before.

A number of large companies have slashed their Facebook and Instagram spending. Photo / AP

One advertising chief executive, Dave Morgan of Simulmedia, called it "Facebook's time of reckoning", saying: "It may not be immediate or dramatic, but advertisers have given Facebook a lot of passes and now we are hearing they are saying it will be harder to stand back."

Perhaps worst of all, though, has been the fury of Facebook's own employees, who arguably have more bargaining power over the company than any individual advertiser. Until recently, the wave of tech worker revolts that began at Google in 2018 appeared not to have affected many Facebookers, who are, as a group, known for their "cult-like" loyalty. The Trump dispute has changed that, prompting a virtual walkout, internal petitions and plenty of leaks.

Campaigners latched on, buying Facebook ads that targeted employees directly with a call to "take action". At a particularly fiery edition of Zuckerberg's weekly Q&As, one employee asked him: "Why are the smartest people in the world focused on contorting or sort of twisting our policies to avoid antagonising Trump instead of driving social issue progress?"

Facebook's content moderators also spoke out – significant because they have traditionally been an underclass in Facebook's glittering citadel, hired as arm's length contractors and subject to aggressive anti-leaking measures.

"People are scared," Chris Gray, a British former moderator who is suing Facebook for allegedly giving him PTSD, told the Telegraph recently. "I call it the Facebook Omerta, this vow of silence... it's really hard to find people who will talk." Nevertheless, four anonymous current moderators joined Gray in an open letter that said: "We can't walk out, but we cannot stay silent."

Zuckerberg's quasi-presidential role

Part of the problem for Zuckerberg is that he has made himself the indisputable human face of his company's Trump policy. Previously, he often left political matters to his chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg, and policy chief, the veteran Republican operative Joel Kaplan.

Yet in recent years he has unabashedly embraced his quasi-presidential role, giving a speech about human rights in front of an American flag and conducting regular fireside chats about coronavirus while Trump was still telling voters to "relax" and promising they'd be back to work by Easter.

"Where Google and others take a more subtle approach, Zuck has allowed Facebook to become a visible part of team Trump," says Roger McNamee, an early Facebook investor and one of Zuckerberg's former mentors, who has criticised the company before for "embracing" Trump.

While he blames the wider situation on Kaplan's team, which he describes as "tightly aligned" with the White House, he says Zuckerberg "appears to be calling the shots... he's clearly gotten much better at being a public figure. He gives no indication of discomfort with Facebook's role as an enabler of disinformation."

In fact, McNamee's old protégé has consolidated his power over the past year, replacing independent or difficult board members with loyalists and old friends. Among the departures were Netflix boss Reed Hastings, former Obama adviser Jeffrey Zients and former American Express chief Kenneth Chenault, the latter of whom was once an important source of advice.

On the plus side, Zuckerberg has secured the return of his old friend Chris Cox, whose departure last year was reportedly due to disagreements about child safety and disinformation.

A post-Trump rebranding?

So how bad is it? Given Zuckerberg's total control of Facebook (he is controlling shareholder and chairman of the board as well as chief executive), his ouster would be very unlikely. The danger is to Facebook's ability to retain and recruit top talent, as well as the health of its advertising economy.

McNamee believes that Zuckerberg will continue his current course, saying: "Companies like Facebook or Google, whose products are ubiquitous, have no choice but to align with the powerful in every market where they operate. In authoritarian countries, they align with authoritarians." Nevertheless, he adds that regulation is "more likely" than any time since 2016.

Eric Schiffer, meanwhile, believes Zuckerberg will recover. "When you have the means to be in front of the camera, and the resources to get your messaging wherever it needs to be, time is your ally," he says. "Don't forget he has access to tremendous data about his own reputation.

"If Trump loses, you'll see a post-Trump rebranding of Zuckerberg – an on-the-record or off-the record reveal about how he really felt. That'll help engender, I think, a level of empathy and a reset on people's view of him."

If Trump wins, however, we should expect more of the same: endlessly "nuanced", careful communications that try, perhaps in vain, to walk the thin line between liberal opposition and the wrath of the White House. As Schiffer puts it: "I think he'd rather chew glass than take the President head on."