How to build a better Facebook

MeWe CEO Mark Weinstein comes on the Source Code Podcast to talk privacy, regulation and how to beat Facebook by being absolutely nothing like Facebook.


MeWe looks a little like Facebook — but it wants to act completely differently.

Image: MeWe

Many have tried to take on Facebook over the years, and none have succeeded. But Mark Weinstein thinks he might have a shot. Weinstein is the CEO of MeWe, and while he's not crazy enough to think he can completely take down the Big Blue app, he's pretty sure he can win over a few hundred million of its users.

MeWe has some things in common with Facebook — it has a news feed, you can post pictures and status updates, there are lots of groups — but its business model and view of the world couldn't be more different. It has no algorithmic timelines, no personalization and no ad business. It's up to 13 million users now, twice the number it had a year ago, and Weinstein thinks it's only just beginning to take off.

Weinstein came on the Source Code Podcast to talk about advertising, censorship, social networking, regulation and much more. He has some seriously strong feelings, and levied some strong accusations, some of which I don't agree with. But his perspective on the space is fascinating, and after eight-plus years of telling anyone who will listen about the perils of the social networking space, it seems like more people than ever are listening.

Below are excerpts from our conversation, lightly edited for length and clarity.

Let's start at the beginning. One of the things we've talked about a lot with Facebook is that you can't sort of change some things about Facebook without fundamentally changing what Facebook is, right? Facebook minus personalization just isn't Facebook anymore. You'd have to tear the thing down and build it again. But you have kind of gone through this process of trying to figure out, what does social plus privacy look like? What was your sense of what it looked like to do social in what you felt like was the right way?

It's fundamentally, to me, very simple. Imagine a social network where the only content, the only thing happening, is you connecting with your friends, with your family and with whatever you're choosing to connect with. Pages and groups that you're in, or following hobbies, philosophies, influencers, et cetera. So your whole news feed is just everything that you're actually truly interested in, because you've made that choice. Is that so radical?

This is the whole idea of social networking. And because you're not Facebook's customer, but the advertiser and marketer is, then they just turn that whole idea of a news feed upside down, because everything now has to serve their business model of taking care of their customer, who is the advertiser, the marketer, the politician, the government, et cetera.

But that's just a totally different thing, right? This has been talked about with Facebook, but they say, look, we could charge people money to use Facebook, and some people would do that. But they believe there's a social good in having something that's free and accessible to everybody. And I'm guessing you don't buy that idea. But I don't know that that's a totally impossible one.

Oh, hold on. With all due respect to you, David, I don't buy for one second Facebook's blasphemy that they're doing social good. And when Mark Zuckerberg stands on a podium and says, "We're the champion and the bastion of free expression" — I mean, give me a break.

Facebook is manipulating people's thoughts and minds. They have thousands of data analysts and psychologists, analyzing everything that's going on in people's conversations so that they can instantly, through algorithmic modeling, identify what your mood is, how to persuade you, how to persuade your mind or your purchase decision about an idea or an object.

It's so massively sophisticated, what they're up to. And it is so utterly simple, what MeWe's up to. MeWe's free, by the way, MeWe's free forever. It says it right on the start button. We do have a freemium business model. Now, will we be as profitable as Facebook? Probably not. Will we be nicely profitable? Absolutely. But Facebook is not a social network. Facebook is a data company. Let's just be clear about that.

So what does it look like to decide to be the privacy option? What does that mean you definitely can't do? It feels so easy to just sort of slowly, one drip at a time, start to do things that get messier. What does it look like to you to maintain privacy?

That's such a beautiful question, because what you just described is what happened to Pinterest, and Snap, and Instagram. And it's because their business models, from the beginning, had the same fundamentals as Facebook. They're ad-driven business models, and at a certain point, you know, Snap decided to turn on the algorithms, Instagram decided to turn on the algorithms. That's the slippery slope. As soon as you do that, then the whole schema of the site and of your experience becomes completely different.

At MeWe, there is not really this drip-drip risk, because we started with a fundamentally different business model. So not only can an advertiser or marketer not target you, but what this also means is that you can't pay us to boost your thoughts into unsuspecting news feeds of innocent people who have no idea what you're thinking about, and didn't ask for that in their news feed.

Remember, it's not just privacy we're talking about. MeWe also doesn't engage in this very bizarre censoring that has become commonplace on Facebook and Twitter, for example, and even on YouTube and Pinterest. And that is so counter to democracy. The idea of social media is: Keep it clean, have your conversations and we're not going to get in the way.

Now, I'm not [an] anything-goes guy, I want to be very clear. This is a clear distinction between MeWe and Parler or 8chan. I think sites where anything goes are terrible, terrible. At MeWe we have strict rules in our terms about inciting violence — you better not do it — about posting hate, about bullying, breaking the law. We have a laundry list. And we have a great Trust and Safety team, we have Report and Block on every post and every profile and every group and every page, and our Trust and Safety team will investigate. We're for the good guys. But we're not going to censor a conversation by conservatives or progressives, or health advocates of one health remedy versus another. Because, you know, their opinion might differ from mine. Why is that any of my business?

Yeah, but couldn't you argue that it's inciting violence to recommend that somebody drink bleach to get rid of coronavirus? That's inciting violence!

Luckily it didn't happen on our site.

Fair enough. But one thing that we've learned over the last few years is, in a funny way, writing a Terms of Service has become way more important than anybody realized. Because I think what we know now is that having a proactive set of rules, that you then can attempt to apply consistently, makes everything better. When people know what the platform is supposed to be, it becomes way less of a problem to try and enforce that, as opposed to saying "anything goes!" and then try to walk that back. That's what Facebook is trying to do, and Twitter has tried to do and Reddit has tried to do, and it's just a mess.

But you do get into positions where you have to do things like define censorship. A lot of the things that you're describing, like hate, people will call those things censorship. If I say a horrible thing to somebody, and you say, "You're not allowed to do that," I'm going to scream censorship, because that's what people do on the internet. To say, not anything goes but we don't censor … there is a middle ground there, but I think it's maybe messier than you're giving credit to.

I didn't say we don't censor. I said that we don't censor based on ideology. And what is clear and clearly evident on Facebook and Twitter, with Jack Dorsey and with Mark Zuckerberg is that there is ideological censorship going on. There has been for a few years.

I don't agree with that, for the record.

That's what I see very clearly. I see when Facebook decides to take down several hundred, or a few thousand, conservative groups, because they're conservative groups, which they've done a few different times in their history. I scratch my head and go, "Wait a minute, a lot of these people are not saying kill the other guy. They're not inciting hate or violence, but you don't like their ideas." Same thing on the Twitter side. As long as you can't boost your thought, I should not be getting in the way unless you're breaking our terms.

You're bringing up something really interesting, which is this idea of freedom of speech versus freedom of reach. We've been talking about that a lot over the last couple of years. There is an increasingly loud idea that one simple way to solve a lot of these problems is just to turn off the algorithms. That if I actually know why I'm seeing what I'm seeing, I'm suddenly in a whole other level of control over what's going on. It sounds like A, I think you agree with that theory, and B, that it's actually really useful for MeWe to not be that, that it suddenly frees you of all kinds of questions that you don't even have to ask yourself, by virtue of you're not deciding what people see.

Absolutely. We're about to launch a feature called MeWe Recommends. If we're Facebook, if it was Facebook Recommends, the thing would be completely algorithmic, based on the analysis of every syllable and every idea that you talk about in your account. But for us, it's very straightforward. There's no algorithmic, deep-state analysis of you and your psyche and what you're talking about. Our team simply looks at those categories and says, here are our best groups on our platform today for, you know, football. So simple. Again, there's no need for a slippery slope.

But that's a step one, right? And then step two is like, well, what if we reorder the list based on what we know people like? And now you're freedom-of-reaching me again, right?

Listen, I don't even know why you bring this up. It's just not needed. We've already proven that a news feed, a completely organic news feed, works perfectly. There's data that says people spend almost twice as much time on our site [compared to Facebook]. Why? Because they're having real conservations. What I always like to say is, Facebook is the facade of your life and MeWe is your real life.

Also, remember, a Google crawler can't get in. What's on MeWe stays on MeWe. You can't Google me to see what I said on MeWe yesterday. If they're members on MeWe, it just depends on your settings inside MeWe.

A lot of the stuff you're describing is just growth hacking, right? That's the game: You get more people to use it more often by having web crawlers and turning on algorithms, so people keep coming back and getting new followers. You can make business cases for all those things. Is it easy not to make those cases?

People are already coming back. Our site data is good, our MAUs, or DAUs. We have almost 13 million members, and we have never paid to acquire a member. Our user acquisition cost is zero. And most people don't know about us. So, you know, the sky's the limit.

What do you make of this moment that we're in? I've read a lot of headlines that include you and Parler, and I get the distinct sense that you don't particularly like that comparison. But what do you make of the fact that you're on the list of places conservatives fed up by Twitter are fleeing to? Do you read that as good news or bad news?

Oh, I think it's great news. Now remember, Parler competes with Twitter. And you know, on the one hand, my hat's off to Parler, because they've done a good job at establishing a beachhead competing with Twitter.

But Parler has two issues, as I see it. Number one is that they're just an echo chamber for conservatives. And a social network is never going to become ultimately successful as an echo chamber for one opinion or another. The second thing is that Parler is anything goes, and I'm completely, completely against anything goes. I don't think a society is based on any kind of civil notion that anything goes is a good thing.

So I understand why the press bundles us because they see Parler as potentially an alternative to Twitter, and they see us as the new Facebook. So they bundle us. And I welcome all the conservatives that are coming, because they understand that we're not going to censor them. Just like we're not going to censor progressives. And we're not going to censor people based on their religion or their political beliefs. You know, MeWe [is] very welcoming. And MeWe has common rules of decency.

As you look around the rest of the social space, some of the things that are going wrong are increasingly obvious. But are there things you see that you feel like other folks are getting right? I mean, some of the stuff you've described sounds a bit like, how Discord thinks about its community as well. And there's like little bits of sort of LinkedIn in what you're talking about. As you look around, are there others who are pushing in the same direction you are?

I think Apple. Now, we're not talking social networking, we're looking at Safari, we're looking at the settings that you have, we're looking at their new fight with Facebook around the ad models. I mean, this is big-time stuff. I look at Tim Cook. I think Tim Cook is an American hero. I think Tim Cook gets it.

I think a lot of people, because we live in such an open and free society, a lot of people don't understand that this is something we had to fight for. That our parents and previous generations had to fight in wars for. And so you know, that we have somebody like Tim Cook, who totally gets it and stands up and says, "No, I'm not giving you a backdoor, you know, even at the risk of that there might be some terrorists harbored. But the greater good is privacy."

Protocol | China

Beijing meets an unstoppable force: Chinese parents and their children

Live-in tutors disguised as nannies, weekday online tutoring classes and adult gaming accounts for rent. Here's how citizens are finding ways to skirt Beijing's diktats.

Citizens in China are experienced at cooking up countermeasures when Beijing or governments come down with rigid policies.

Photo: Liu Ying/Xinhua via Getty Images

During the summer break, Beijing handed down a parade of new regulations designed to intervene in youth education and entertainment, including a strike against private tutoring, a campaign to "cleanse" the internet and a strict limit on online game playing time for children. But so far, these seemingly iron-clad rules have met their match, with students and their parents quickly finding workarounds.

Grassroots citizens in China are experienced at cooking up countermeasures when Beijing or governments come down with rigid policies. Authorities then have to play defense, amending holes in their initial rules.

Keep Reading Show less
Shen Lu

Shen Lu is a reporter with Protocol | China. Her writing has appeared in Foreign Policy, The New York Times and POLITICO, among other publications. She can be reached at

Keep Reading Show less
A technology company reimagining global capital markets and economies.
Protocol | Policy

Google and Microsoft are at it again, now over government software

The on-again, off-again battle between the two companies flared up again when Google commissioned a study on how much the U.S. government relies on Microsoft software.

Google and Microsoft are in a long-running feud that has once again flared up in recent months.

Photo: Jens Tandler/EyeEm/Getty Images

According to a new report commissioned by Google, Microsoft has an overwhelming "share in the U.S. government office productivity software market," potentially leading to security risks for local, state and federal governments.

The five-page document, released Tuesday by a trade group that counts Google as a member, represents the latest escalation between the two companies in a long-running feud that has once again flared up in recent months.

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.


Facebook wants to kill the family iPad

Facebook has built the first portable smart display, and is introducing a new household mode that makes it easier to separate work from play.

Facebook's new Portal Go device will go on sale for $199 in October.

Photo: Facebook

Facebook is coming for the coffee table tablet: The company on Tuesday introduced a new portable version of its smart display called Portal Go, which promises to be a better communal device for video calls, media consumption and many of the other things families use iPads for.

Facebook also announced a revamped version of its Portal Pro device Tuesday, and introduced a new household mode to Portals that will make it easier to share these devices with everyone in a home without having to compromise on working-from-home habits. Taken together, these announcements show that there may be an opening for consumer electronics companies to meet this late-pandemic moment with new device categories.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Protocol | Policy

The techlash is threatening human rights around the world

Some 48 countries introduced laws to regulate tech last year. But researchers say many of those laws are just attempts at censorship and surveillance.

In its latest report, Freedom House President Michael Abramowitz said, "We really see free expression and privacy as under unprecedented strain."

Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Governments around the world are seizing on widespread frustrations with Big Tech as justification for a spate of increasingly restrictive laws governing online speech, a new report finds, a trend that researchers say puts both free expression and the fate of tech companies' overseas employees at risk.

Over the last year alone, some 48 countries worldwide introduced — and in some cases, passed — laws to regulate tech companies, according to the latest report by Freedom House, a nonprofit that publishes an annual survey on internet freedoms in 70 countries. While those laws have often been passed in the name of promoting competition, protecting people's data and moderating offensive content, the report's authors say that, in many cases, these laws are merely thinly veiled attempts to force companies into censorship and surveillance.

Keep Reading Show less
Issie Lapowsky

Issie Lapowsky ( @issielapowsky) is Protocol's chief correspondent, covering the intersection of technology, politics, and national affairs. She also oversees Protocol's fellowship program. Previously, she was a senior writer at Wired, where she covered the 2016 election and the Facebook beat in its aftermath. Prior to that, Issie worked as a staff writer for Inc. magazine, writing about small business and entrepreneurship. She has also worked as an on-air contributor for CBS News and taught a graduate-level course at New York University's Center for Publishing on how tech giants have affected publishing.

Latest Stories