12 Leaders The Economist October 9th 2021
D
isaster strucktheworld’sbiggestsocialnetworkonOcto
ber 4th when Facebook and its sister apps were knocked off
line for six hours. It was one of the less embarrassing moments
of the company’s week. The next day a whistleblower, Frances
Haugen, told Congress of all manner of wickedness at the firm,
from promoting eating disorders to endangering democracy
(see United States section). Some wondered whether the world
would be a better place if the outage were permanent.
A share of the opprobrium heaped on Facebook is incoher
ent. Politicians are angry but so far seem incapable of coordi
nating reform to rein it in. And investors have kept buying the
stock, regardless of the bad headlines. Yet the company should
take no comfort from this. The blind fury unleashed shows that
its reputational problems have got out of hand.
Some of this week’s criticism was tenden
tious. Reports highlighted internal research
showing that Instagram, Facebook’s photo
sharing app, makes one in five American teen
agers feel worse about themselves. They paid
less attention to the finding that Instagram
makes twice as many feel better about them
selves. Facebook’s critics are right that it should
be more open. But the firm has half a point when it says that the
hysterical reaction to unsurprising findings will lead companies
to conclude that it is safer not to do such research at all.
Other complaints are really criticisms of the broader inter
net. The question of how to regulate viral content for children
goes beyond Facebook, as any parent who has left their child
with YouTube knows. Likewise, dilemmas over how the firm
amplifies attention and how to draw the line between upholding
free speech and minimising harm. Facebook repeated its plea
that Congress should weigh in on matters such as minimum
ages, rather than leaving it to firms. It has made a better stab than
most at settling freespeech questions with its “oversight board”,
a pompoussounding but quietly useful body which dispensesrulingsonmattersfrommisogynytomisinformation.
The most damaging claim this week gained the least atten
tion. Ms Haugen alleges that Facebook has concealed a decline
in its young American users. She revealed internal projections
that a drop in teenagers’ engagement could lead to an overall de
cline in American users of 45% within the next two years. Inves
tors have long faced a lack of open disclosure. Misleading adver
tisers would undermine the source of nearly all the firm’s sales,
and potentially break the law. (The firm denies it.)
Does any of this matter? Although Facebook’s share price has
lagged behind some tech giants, it has risen by almost 30% in the
past 12 months. Politicians threaten to break the company up,
but the antitrust case is flawed. The Justice Department’s claim
that Facebook is a monopoly rests on defining
its market so as to exclude most social net
works. The nonsense of this was demonstrated
by the outage, when users flocked to apps like
Telegram, TikTok and Twitter. The action is
more an expression of frustration than a power
ful argument about competition law.
But fury may matter. Facebook is nearing a
reputational point of no return. Even when it
set out plausible responses to Ms Haugen, people no longer
wanted to hear. The firm risks joining the ranks of corporate un
touchables like big tobacco. If that idea takes hold, Facebook
risks losing its young, liberal staff. Even if its ageing customers
stick with the social network, Facebook has bigger ambitions
that could be foiled if public opinion continues to curdle. Who
wants a metaverse created by Facebook? Perhaps as many people
as would like their health care provided by Philip Morris.
If rational argument alone is no longer enough to get Face
book out of its hole, the company should look hard at its public
face. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s allpowerful founder, made a
reasoned statement after this week’s wave of anger. Hewasig
nored or ridiculed and increasingly looks like a liability.nEven when it has a point, Facebook is reviled. The problem starts at the topFacepalm
Social mediaH
ydrogen has been controversial ever since the tragedy of
the Hindenburg, an airship filled with it that went down in
flames in 1937. Boosters say that the gas is a lowcarbon miracle
which can power cars and homes. The hydrogen economy, they
hope, will redraw the energy map. Sceptics note that several hy
drogen investment drives since the 1970s have ended in tears as
the gas’s shortcomings were exposed. As we explain (see Brief
ing), the reality lies in between. Hydrogen technologies could
eliminate perhaps a tenth of today’s greenhousegas emissions
by 2050. That is a sliver—but, considering the scale of the energy
transition, a crucial and lucrative one. Hydrogen is not a primary source of energy like oil or coal. It
is best thought of as an energy carrier, akin to electricity, and as a
means of storage, like a battery. It has to be manufactured. Low
carbon energy sources such as renewables and nuclear power
can be used to separate water (h 2 o) into its constituents of oxy
gen and hydrogen. This is inefficient and expensive, but costs
are falling. Hydrogen can also be made from dirty fossil fuels but
this emits a lot of pollution unless it is coupled with technol
ogies that capture carbon and sequester it. Hydrogen is flamma
ble and bulky compared with many fuels. The implacable laws of
thermodynamics mean that converting primary energy intoHydrogen’s moment has come at lastH 2 ’s hopeand hype
Climate change and innovation