Apple, NeXT veteran Joanna Hoffman calls today's technology leaders 'remarkably ignorant'
Former Apple, NeXT, and General Magic marketer says Facebook is "peddling in an addictive drug called anger," and many modern tech firms are "flawed," or "devious."
Joanna Hoffman was a key figure at the start of three of the most significant companies of the entire technology industry, starting with Apple and the Macintosh in 1980, and then moving on to both General Magic, and NeXT. Compared to those firms, she says that today's technology companies are responsible for the harm social media has caused.
"As I look at Facebook, for example, I keep thinking are they really that ignorant is this motivated by something... darker than it what appears?" she said at 2020 CogX, where, according to CNBC she appeared alongside former General Magic colleagues.
She said that she does have "enormous respect" for what Facebook has achieved overall. However, certain elements of its work are "destroying the very fabric of democracy, destroying the very fabric of human relationships, and peddling in an addictive drug called anger."
"You know it's just like tobacco, it's no different than the opioids," she continued. "We know anger is addictive, we know we can attract people to our platform and get engagement if we get them p****d off enough. So therefore what, we should capitalize on that each and every time?"
Asked about the culture of big technology firms and how they are led, Hoffman says that, "individuals make a huge difference." Without a strong individual leader, as she worked with in Steve Jobs at Apple and NeXT, and Marc Porat at General Magic, "then nothing productive results in the end."
She says many of today's technology leaders are "genius in what they've accomplished and what they have done at a very young age [but] remarkably ignorant on what they are sowing in the world." They're also flawed, she argues, adding "The question is, how flawed, how ignorant, and how devious?"
Hoffman features heavily in the General Magic documentary, and in Aaron Sorkin's "Steve Jobs" drama, where she was portrayed by Kate Winslet.
Joanna Hoffman was a key figure at the start of three of the most significant companies of the entire technology industry, starting with Apple and the Macintosh in 1980, and then moving on to both General Magic, and NeXT. Compared to those firms, she says that today's technology companies are responsible for the harm social media has caused.
"As I look at Facebook, for example, I keep thinking are they really that ignorant is this motivated by something... darker than it what appears?" she said at 2020 CogX, where, according to CNBC she appeared alongside former General Magic colleagues.
She said that she does have "enormous respect" for what Facebook has achieved overall. However, certain elements of its work are "destroying the very fabric of democracy, destroying the very fabric of human relationships, and peddling in an addictive drug called anger."
"You know it's just like tobacco, it's no different than the opioids," she continued. "We know anger is addictive, we know we can attract people to our platform and get engagement if we get them p****d off enough. So therefore what, we should capitalize on that each and every time?"
Asked about the culture of big technology firms and how they are led, Hoffman says that, "individuals make a huge difference." Without a strong individual leader, as she worked with in Steve Jobs at Apple and NeXT, and Marc Porat at General Magic, "then nothing productive results in the end."
She says many of today's technology leaders are "genius in what they've accomplished and what they have done at a very young age [but] remarkably ignorant on what they are sowing in the world." They're also flawed, she argues, adding "The question is, how flawed, how ignorant, and how devious?"
Hoffman features heavily in the General Magic documentary, and in Aaron Sorkin's "Steve Jobs" drama, where she was portrayed by Kate Winslet.
Comments
The companies she is talking about sell us. Our eyeballs. Our attention.
Nothing gathers a crowd as well as a train wreck.
So FB et.al. are allowing train wrecks to flow freely to earn more money, though hiding behind the fig leaf of free speech.
In reality the "something...darker" is called greed.
I get what you're saying in that Facebook shouldn't be the one censoring things.
I think the real problem is that we, as humans, are inexplicably drawn to pain and anger, and Facebook's algorithms magnify that tendency in unhealthy ways. I suspect that Facebook tried to find a way to rein it in or refocus it, but could not, so they gave up. The fact is that as long as Facebook tries to "surface" things that interest people, it will "surface" divisive, angry topics. Because that's what draws people in. People crave being right and getting upset at all the wrong people.
My mind is always open to new information. It might be right, it might be wrong. It’s up to me to process the information given to me based upon everything that preceded it. Problem today is everybody wants the headline without the story or facts to back it up. Very few are capable of putting any context in to events that happened yesterday let alone 150 years ago.
If I’m really lucky you send me a link to an article that is just as obtuse as “your facts” and includes catch phrases as “some sources say”, or “trusted informants report”, or “those that wish to remain anonymous”. Much like the last 3 years we wasted on report after reported that was later found to be false without those “sources” ever called in to question.
It’s at this point the thinking public says there is no there there and moves on. Thanks for proving my point.
As for FB and Twitter, as long as remain full of Russian bots intentionally spreading lies in order to divide their target (America), no, you are not in control. Hate to break it to ya, bub. Plenty of lies will be spread, and plenty of people won't even know it.
Free speech without compassion and accountability is just a shouting match.
It also helps promote the echo chamber effect where you only see the one point of view the algorithm thinks you are comfortable with - no matter if it is based on lies or misinformation.
While establishing standards for what is allowed on Facebook will not fix the underlying human condition, it may actually help to avoid the normalization of deviant influences that can quickly escalate out of control. Living in a society always involves deliberate compromises and safeguards to keep the peace and maintain what is actually an ongoing social experiment intact for the foreseeable future. There are no perfect answers, but we should always error on the side of safety, humanity, and compassion for this ongoing experiment that we are all a part of, unless of course you want to completely unplug from society and move into an isolated cabin in the woods to work on your private manifesto.
So the question comes down to who gets to set the standards that Facebook and others should follow to help us maintain peace and harmony? Should we allow the company itself, a company whose existence is benefited by the fruits of our society, to set the standards or should some other entity make the calls? I personally believe that as stakeholders in the outcome, we should be the ones setting the standards in much the same way that we don't allow gun manufacturers to establish gun related laws. We should set the rules based on the values and benefits that we want these tools to provide for our society. The first amendment does not mean you can cry "fire" in a crowded room any more than the second amendment allows you to indiscriminately shoot a gun anywhere and at any time. Maintaining social order rises about philosophical purity, because as imperfect creatures we aren't equipped physically or mentally to traverse our lives in harmony with billions of others without having some guardrails in place to keep us from falling, or getting pushed, into a bad place. Pragmatism isn't perfection, but it's far more attainable.
2. Joanna Hoffman said nothing about wanting to be the party passing judgement over what anyone says. Perhaps you’re projecting a preoccupation with authoritarianism, because it’s not present in the article.
3. Most people are not equipped with enough critical thinking skills (nor time, or experience doing research for quality info) to “separate the wheat from the chaff” as you put it. We need far better average education for starters. While we are failing to enact those standards, we need a stopgap for regulating garbage info, and, more specifically, compelling companies to not use it as bait to sell advertising spots.
The whole reason regulation exists is because of cause & effect: abuse happens, and then society deems it important enough to instill regulation to protect itself from more of said abuse. Child labor laws aren’t authoritarianism. Banning the use of myths and lies as bait for advertising is a reasonable response to the harm it does. (HOW to ban it isn’t something I’m going to attempt to investigate here)
You cannot run a society on the notion of zero compulsion until you have created a society of rational and logical beings... and that’s nowhere near to even being on the horizon.
4. “The slippery slope” is a logical fallacy used to push FUD, not logical reasoning. Try a different approach.
Free speech without compassion and accountability is also simply irresponsible and harmful. The notion of “a marketplace for ideas” fails entirely when it’s used to defend topics (or worse, provide them a platform) that have no place in civilization (such as notions that dehumanize people based on arbitrary traits; naziism has no place in civilization).
Today we’re taught that we cannot not discriminate against anything. No matter how far out there something is we have to accept everyone’s truths. You can’t have that in a functioning society/culture. By definition a society or culture is a collection of people with some basic common values, beliefs, and structure.