Move Fast but Don't Break Things

Thoughts on the need for mindful innovation

Mindless breaking

Move fast and break things. Here concludeth the Silicon Valley sermon (and Facebook's internal motto until 2014). If you want to make a difference, change the world, and gain an edge, you have to move fast. Get your product/software market-ready as quickly as possible, and screw the consequences. If current systems and structures can't adapt, screw them too, break 'em.

Interestingly, in 2014 Facebook changed its motto to 'move fast with stable infrastructure'. Actual insight or saving face? I'll leave that up to you. A few weeks ago, a Business Insider article by Isobel Asher Hamilton argues that Facebook's – sorry, Meta's – actions don't necessarily match its words and that the 'move fast, break things' motto is still alive and kicking behind the scenes.

Another buzzword that embodies the same idea is disruption. What exactly do you think you're disrupting? A stable structure that works? Note also that the term is now often used to actually say 'here's this thing that is a lot like another thing, but slightly better.' The opposite of what it's supposed to mean. True disruptors don't (need to) announce themselves. For example, here's a (redacted) sentence I read only days ago: The coming of X technology will disrupt your industry. Even if we set aside the deliberate vagueness of your industry, why not ‘improve’, or ‘change’, or ‘expand’? I suspect it’s not only because disruption is the word all the cool kids use. It also sounds more intentional, more impactful, more hands-on. "We're here to shake things up," disruption says, "and if we shake hard enough, we might even break a thing or two."

From breaking to building

I am aware that the above sounds like a grumpy old man's Luddite rant. It isn't. (And I don't think I qualify as old. Yet.) I am a strong proponent of enabling scientific and technological progress. I even think that, in some areas, we could push harder.

However, these mottos – move fast and break things, aim for disruption – contain a disregard for the fundamental way in which science and technology are embedded in social, cultural, and political contexts. The things an innovation ends up breaking are rarely the things it was set out to break. That is a problem. Companies, products, software do not exist in a vacuum; they are not weapons to be aimed at one specific industry or predecessor. When the goal becomes breaking things, there will be collateral damage. From biased algorithms to medication tested only on white adult men, the victims of the metaphorical breaking are rarely the tech or pharma industry that was supposed to be 'disrupted'.  

As usual, the inimitable xkcd is ahead of us. (comic link)

Here's another consideration: broken things slow everyone down. Let's take software, for example, since the motto is often used in this field. There's a lot of pressure to come out with something new first. Say, a new way to connect online. A social network of sorts. You see where I'm going with this. Being first is a big factor that can improve the odds of successfully claiming a prime spot in the digital ecosystem. But after the boom comes a bust. Have you, as a company or developer, considered a business model, or will you annoy your users with ads coming out of nowhere? Or if you go open-source, how will you deal with the financial side of logistics? Have you taken into account privacy concerns? Bots? Mis- or even disinformation? Eventually, you'll have to slow down and start fixing the (unforeseen and unintended) broken things. That costs time that could have been used for thoughtful innovation rather than error-fixing. Being first does not guarantee longevity.

(There is a case to be made for the idea that if a company gets big enough, it can take the busts and still maintain a monopoly position. A thought for another time, although I suspect this would require the development of more context-sensitivity and it might move the company away from the innovative edge. We see that often. Innovative companies that gain a near-monopoly position go on to lose their innovative mindset.)

When your goal is disruption, you forget what comes after; when you're breaking, you're not building.

Of course, sometimes things need to be broken before others can be built. Less than we think perhaps. Giant's shoulders, everything’s connected, and all that. But when the breaking becomes the point, no one cares about the blueprint of what to build from the rubble.

Expanding the view

Some people – such as General Catalyst's Hemant Taneja – have suggested that the era of 'move fast and break things' is over, that it is "increasingly untenable". We should aim for virtuous change rather than mindlessly breaking things, so says the next generation of motto-makers. Easier said than done. Who decides what constitutes a beneficial change anyway? And beneficial for whom?

Fortunately, the ethics of science and technology is a burgeoning (sub)field of academic philosophy. A lot of very smart people are tackling questions of how science, technology, society, and politics interact.

Unfortunately, the people who want to move fast and the people who are studying how to do so without breaking too many things tend to sit in their respective towers. Even when a major tech player employs someone with a philosophical/ethical background specifically for the purpose of ethical innovation, there's no guarantee they will be listened to. (Recall the whole hubbub concerning Google ethicist Timnit Gebru.)

So, if you want to innovate responsibly and sustainably, don't focus on breaking, focus on (re)building. (And perhaps find yourself a philosopher.)

---