Facebook was not originally created to be a company. It was built to accomplish a social mission — to make the world more open and connected.

In the winter of 2012, as Facebook prepared to raise capital on publicly traded stock markets, Mark Zuckerberg penned an open letter to early investors who wanted to buy into Facebook. He told Wall Street that Facebook had a social mission of global scope and historic proportions. He claimed that Facebook was a different kind of tech company that would never compromise its service in the pursuit of money. He claimed that the IPO was first and foremost about his employees and early investors.

In the six years since Facebook went public, the letter has become less about providing company background for new investors. The letter has grown into an articulation of a dangerous body of beliefs and practices about the role of technology in the future. At many major technology companies, senior leaders spend enormous time, money and political capital to craft and distribute mission statements rooted in love, hope and the possibility of a better world. These mission statements use the language of activism, human rights and social movements, but they are grounded in the same paternalistic ideals of salvation, conditional freedom and technological rule that characterize a

white saviour industrial complex. If we’re serious about solving the greatest challenges of our time — poverty, war, disease, climate change, violence and destruction — it is time that we critically examine tech company mission statements more carefully. In particular, it is crucial to consider what is missing from these missions: an acknowledgement of what caused these institutional global problems to occur in the first place.

The distance between the economic engine to facilitate innovation and the social systems to protect the uneven application of innovation has never been farther apart. In building and delivering technology solutions, we often externalize human and social costs that result from winners and losers in a global marketplace. Innovation is important, but too often, we mistake growth for progress. Growth that positively shapes the future of our societies, towards values of justice, equality and human rights, can and should be pursued by our governments. But so far, these values get precious little consideration by the tech industry when put up against the values of economic activity and wealth creation.

The tech industry must be prepared to accept that technology is at least partly responsible for these challenges, and at times, technology advances the interests of those who profit from these challenges. Advances in military technology feed a military-industrial complex. Advances in surveillance technology feeds an over-policing epidemic. Advances in automation technology exacerbate a class divide that leads to poverty, alienation and desperation, which in turn sets the stage for terrorism and violence. Modern technology, both in its production and its usage, has been weaponized as a tool of wealth preservation. In other words, for tech companies, the side effects of their missions can no longer be ignored.