One of the largest and most influential companies in history is also a source of controversy. Since its founding in 2004, Facebook (currently Meta) has generated distrust, especially regarding privacy. In this article, we present Facebook's trajectory of success, its impact on society, and the controversies in which the company has been involved. ## Digital Race In the mid-1990s, a kind of digital gold rush began, seeking prominence in the new reality of the World Wide Web. The main goal was to conquer a good domain, i.e., a ".com" address. This first generation of the internet witnessed the emergence of countless companies in the United States. Many, however, failed notably. An emblematic case was Pets.com. Created in 1998, the company raised more than US$ 80 million in its IPO and, at the end of 2000, declared bankruptcy. Without a business plan or market study, Pets.com became a symbol of the irresponsible times of the early internet. Other companies were acquired for exorbitant values by larger companies, such as Broadcast.com, bought for US$ 5.7 billion by Yahoo in 1999. Three years later, Yahoo shut down Broadcast.com's operations, consolidating what is considered one of the worst deals in internet history. While some companies, like Amazon and eBay, became digital powerhouses, the general scenario was marked by disappointments. Between the first half of 2000 and the last half of 2002, the Nasdaq index, which brings together technology companies in New York, recorded a 78% drop, characterizing the burst of the so-called dot-com bubble. ## Emergence of Interactivity From the ashes of this bubble, the first platforms focused on user participation began to emerge in the United States. The concept, known as Web 2.0, contrasted with Web 1.0. In an article published in 1999, digital technology specialist Darcy DiNucci explained: “The Web we know now, loaded in browser windows with essentially static screens, is just an embryo of the Web to come. The first signs of Web 2.0 are already beginning to appear.” In the new internet, users began to create and share content without intermediaries. With this, blogs gained popularity, and the concept of UGC (user-generated content) emerged. ## Emergence of Social Networks In this context, the first social network of Web 2.0 emerged. In 2002, Jonathan Abrams founded Friendster, a site that displayed connections between friends of friends, encouraging the formation of new online friendships. A year later, Friendster users created MySpace, which, like Abrams' network, attracted millions of users. The interest was evident, especially among young people, in using the internet for social interactions. In 2004, the market gained new competitors. Google engineer Orkut Buyukkokten launched a social network as a side project, named after him: Orkut. However, after initial success, these platforms faced decline. Friendster was deactivated years later, MySpace lost relevance after being sold, and Orkut, very popular in Brazil, failed to modernize and was shut down by Google. ## Birth of Facebook In 2004, at Harvard University in the United States, a social network was created that would transform human relations. With the collaboration of four colleagues, psychology and computer science student Mark Zuckerberg, a talented 19-year-old programmer, launched The Facebook, initially exclusive to Harvard students. In three weeks, 6,000 students registered. A month later, the platform expanded to other renowned universities such as Columbia, Yale, and Stanford. In the same year, the company was moved to the San Francisco region. ## Expansion of Facebook Zuckerberg's empire not only continued to attract more and more users and customers but also intensified another market domination strategy: the acquisition of competitors. In April 2012, Facebook paid US$ 1 billion for the photo app Instagram, launched less than two years earlier and which had 30 million users. Two years later, an even more impressive purchase: WhatsApp, which had 400 million users. WhatsApp was acquired for US$ 19 billion. Facebook, according to market information, still tried to buy, unsuccessfully, another growing new app, Snapchat, launched in 2011. The offer, which would have been made in 2013, supposedly reached US$ 3 billion. Failing to complete the acquisition, Zuckerberg decided to incorporate functionalities into Instagram that made Snapchat a peculiar tool and opened direct competition between the platforms. In October 2020, a report by a US House of Representatives committee said that Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple exercised a monopoly role in the sector. The committee's findings were advisory and did not imply Congressional action against the companies, but the possibility that some regulation might force the breakup of these large corporations was not ruled out. ## Ad Personalization - The Great Financial Leap Ad personalization was made possible by the continuous collection of user data, allowing for constant adjustments to the algorithm that defines the platform's behavior. This enabled increasingly precise ads, requiring detailed information about habits, musical preferences, clothing, and other aspects of users. An example was Beacon, launched in 2007, which connected Facebook to partner companies. Purchases made at these companies were published in the News Feed, combining sharing of personal activities with advertising. Without prior authorization from users, Beacon generated a lawsuit, and the functionality became opt-in, activated only with consent. The experience taught the company the limits of its actions before provoking public dissatisfaction. ## Like Button and Monetization In 2008, Facebook launched the feature to log in to other sites with the platform's account. In 2009, the “like” button was introduced, facilitating the expression of preferences. Each like allowed the company to map user interests spontaneously, revealing tastes that users themselves often did not realize. In 2010, the like button was expanded to the entire internet, making online experiences more social and personalized. That year, the network already had 400 million users. ## Money pouring in The numbers reflect the company's financial success. In 2008, Facebook recorded a loss of US$ 56 million, with revenue of US$ 272 million. In 2009, it obtained a profit of US$ 229 million. In 2010, revenue reached US$ 1.97 billion, with a profit of US$ 606 million. In 2015, revenue reached US$ 17.9 billion, and profit US$ 3.7 billion. In 2009, the company was valued at US$ 10 billion. In 2012, on its New York Stock Exchange debut, each share was sold at US$ 38, totaling US$ 104 billion. Today the company is valued at a whopping US$ 1.89 trillion, with each share costing US$ 750.90 as of today (09/11/2025). ## Partners of the Internet Facebook was inspired by Google, hiring Sheryl Sandberg, a former Google advertising executive, to replicate its financial success. Researcher Shoshana Zuboff, in *The Age of Surveillance Capitalism*, argues that Google created targeted ads, establishing what she calls surveillance capitalism. This model, based on continuous monitoring of searches, purchases, and navigation, anticipates and influences user desires, generating profits but compromising privacy. ## Acquisitions and Monopoly The market domination strategy included the acquisition of competitors. In 2012, Facebook bought Instagram for US$ 1 billion, with 30 million users. In 2014, it acquired WhatsApp for US$ 19 billion, with 400 million users. Attempts to buy Snapchat for US$ 3 billion failed, leading Facebook to incorporate similar features into Instagram. In 2020, a US House report accused Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Apple of monopolistic practices, suggesting possible regulations. ## Political use of tools Meta's tools, such as Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, have been widely used for political purposes, shaping narratives and influencing public opinion worldwide. These platforms allow parties, candidates, and political movements to reach millions of people quickly through targeted ads, viral posts, and discussion groups, often exploiting algorithms that prioritize engagement. However, their use also raises concerns, such as the spread of disinformation, voter manipulation through microtargeting, and social polarization, as seen in cases like the Cambridge Analytica scandal. Despite Meta's efforts to implement moderation and fact-checking policies, the political impact of these tools remains a controversial topic, with criticism of their effectiveness and neutrality. It didn't take long for some to realize that the same model that allowed serving and creating desires for products or services also allowed the incentive of illegal political actions. The Cambridge Analytica scandal, revealed by the British newspaper *The Observer*, exposed the use of data from millions of Facebook users as a tool for political propaganda in favor of Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump. The same strategy was supposedly used by those interested in the victory of Brexit in the referendum on the UK's remaining in the European Union. Global Science Research and Cambridge Analytica took data from hundreds of thousands of Facebook users - who were paid for it. The companies, however, also had access to the personal data of these people's connections on the social network, which raised the database to about 50 million users. Cambridge Analytica had among its executives Steve Bannon, a political advisor to Donald Trump. Within days, Mark Zuckerberg released a statement admitting that Facebook had made "errors" and Cambridge Analytica was "closed" (there are still companies related to the parent company SCL Group and other entities operating in the same field). Users whose data was stolen were targeted with political ads specifically directed at them, adopting the model already used in the sale of products for political propaganda. Facebook, as would happen with other digital platforms, became a tool in the propagation of so-called fake news that was deliberately disclosed to distort reality. The scandal caused the closure of Cambridge Analytica, and the case was highlighted by concerns about fake news on digital platforms. WhatsApp was also used for political propaganda through “bursts” of messages in closed groups. *BBC News* reports revealed that phone numbers, obtained from commercial lists or from Facebook itself, were used to add people to groups without consent. Measures such as limiting forwards were implemented, but the problem still persists. Social media owners promised to close the gaps in their systems that allowed undue invasion of privacy and abuse by political groups. Specific measures were taken in the United States and Brazil, while changes in the platforms - such as a lower limit on the number of people to whom a message could be forwarded on WhatsApp - were implemented. Mark Zuckerberg and other leaders of social media and technology companies, such as Google and Twitter, were successively called to testify before the US Congress due to problems in the technology sector, including undue invasion of privacy and disguised political use. ## Silicon Valley Political Involvement This is a crucial point: when did Silicon Valley stop supporting Biden and start supporting Trump? It all began after a meeting between the Biden-Harris administration and several influential figures. Initially, Silicon Valley was mostly progressive and supported Biden. The only exception was Peter Thiel, who has always supported Elon Musk. Interestingly, Elon Musk himself was a Democrat, as was Trump, but they all migrated to the Republican Party. Many people don't know, but Trump was close to Bill and Hillary Clinton before his political turn. Almost all of these names migrated to the Republican Party recently. The only exception is Robert Prevels, "Leon X", who has been a party member since 2012. ## Silicon Valley Philosophy Silicon Valley has always presented itself as progressive, but some disagree. A fundamental book for understanding this discussion is *Who Owns the Future?* by Jaron Lanier. Lanier is a fascinating figure: a computer genius, musician, and one of the pioneers of virtual reality (he even coined the term). A former chief engineer at Microsoft, he is one of the few Silicon Valley insiders who openly criticizes the sector. He also wrote *Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts*, where he argues that if you don't pay for a service, you are the product — due to data mining and big data. In *Who Owns the Future?*, Lanier describes Silicon Valley ideology not as simple progressivism, but as a "digital Maoism." According to him, this vision preaches a radical collectivism where everything should be free, but with a hidden monetization system through the sale of data. ## Technological Revolution and the Analogy with the Chinese Revolution Lanier compares this mentality to that of Mao Zedong, not Marx. While Marx believed that communism would naturally emerge from advanced capitalism (hence his emphasis on industrialized England), the Russian and Chinese revolutions had rural, not urban, roots. Similarly, Silicon Valley created an ecosystem where services like WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook are "free," but actually profit from the exploitation of user data. ## Whitney Webb's Thesis: Mass Surveillance However, there is another perspective. Journalist Whitney Webb, author of the books *One Nation Under Blackmail* (in two volumes), argues that Silicon Valley is not driven by a Maoist ideology, but by a mass surveillance project. In her article *The Military Origins of Facebook*, Webb states that social networks emerged after 9/11 with a clear purpose: to spy on the population under the pretext of fighting terrorism. After the attacks, the US government created the Patriot Act, which weakened fundamental rights such as due process. Parallelly, the Total Information Awareness (TIA) project emerged, which aimed to monitor all citizens. When Congress blocked TIA on February 3, 2003, Facebook was launched the next day (February 4). Coincidence? Webb believes not. She argues that Facebook, like Google, had funding from agencies like the CIA and DARPA, transferring state surveillance to the private sector. ## The Roy Cohn Method and Blackmail Webb also draws parallels between figures like Roy Cohn (Trump's mentor) and Jeffrey Epstein. Both used blackmail: Cohn filmed powerful figures at parties to later extort them, just as Epstein did on his island. Trump and Epstein were friends until the early 2000s when they broke up; Democrats accuse the former president of lying, while Republicans see politicization in the case, which also brings messages from figures like Bill Clinton and Peter Mandelson, in addition to links to Prince Andrew, accused of sexual abuse. The disclosure reflects growing pressure for transparency in the investigations into Epstein and his network. Whitney Webb suggests that social networks are the modern version of this scheme: they collect data for control and manipulation, not by chance, but by design. ## Outsourcing Surveillance Webb explains in her books that when Congress began to limit the CIA, the agency outsourced its operations to private companies. Just as Lockheed Martin has its Skunk Works (secret projects sector), the CIA began funding startups like Palantir (founded in 2003, the same year as Facebook) to keep surveillance out of public scrutiny. Everything has references in the book! And this was a very out-of-the-box plan, because instead of the government using means to go after people's data, they simply hand it over voluntarily! ## Technology or Control? While Lanier sees Silicon Valley as a "digital Maoism" that preaches free services but profits from data, Webb sees an orchestrated project of surveillance and control. What seems clear is that, whether by ideology or hidden interests, the power of these platforms only grows. And worst of all: often, progressives and conservatives think they are on opposite sides, when, in fact, they may be being manipulated by the same system, or joining together for such a maneuver through technology. ## Reading Tips: - [Who Owns the Future? (Jaron Lanier)](https://amzn.to/3QHXVf6) - [Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts (Jaron Lanier)](https://amzn.to/4txAbc3) - [One Nation Under Blackmail (Whitney Webb)](https://amzn.to/4utYV5p) - [Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet (Yasha Levine)](https://amzn.to/42suPTx) So, what do you think? Is Silicon Valley progressive, vigilant, or both? Comment below! If you want your company to grow using digital platforms, send me a message so we can discuss a personalized plan!