Brian Boland spent more than a decade figuring out how to build a system that would make Meta money. On Thursday, he told a California jury it incentivized drawing more and more users, including teens, onto Facebook and Instagram — despite the risks.

Boland’s testimony came a day after Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stand in a case over whether Meta and YouTube are liable for allegedly harming a young woman’s mental health. Zuckerberg framed Meta’s mission as balancing safety with free expression, not revenue. Boland’s role was to counter this by explaining how Meta makes money, and how that shaped its platforms’ design. Boland testified that Zuckerberg fostered a culture that prioritized growth and profit over users’ wellbeing from the top down. He said he’s been described as a whistleblower — a term Meta has broadly sought to limit for fear it would prejudice the jury, but which the judge has generally allowed. Over his 11 years at Meta, Boland said he went from having “deep blind faith” in the company to coming to the “firm belief that competition and power and growth were the things that Mark Zuckerberg cared about most.”

Boland last served as Meta’s VP of partnerships before leaving in 2020, working to bring content to the platform that it could monetize, and previously worked in a variety of advertising roles beginning in 2009. He testified that Facebook’s infamous early slogan of “move fast and break things” represented “a cultural ethos at the company.” He said the idea behind the motto was generally, “don’t really think about what could go wrong with a product, but just get it out there and learn and see.” At the height of its prominence internally, employees would sit down at their desks to see a piece of paper that said, “what will you break today?” Boland testified.

Zuckerberg consistently made his priorities for the company abundantly clear, according to Boland. He’d announce them in all hands meetings and leave no shadow of a doubt what the company should be focused on, whether it was building its products to be mobile-first, or getting ahead of the competition. When Zuckerberg realized that then-Facebook had to get into shape to compete with a rumored Google social network competitor (which he didn’t name, but seemed to refer to Google+), Boland recalled a digital countdown clock in the office that symbolized how much time they had left to achieve their goals during what the company called a “lockdown.” During his time at the company, Boland testified, there was never a lockdown around user safety, and Zuckerberg allegedly instilled in engineers that “the priorities were on winning growth and engagement.”

Meta has repeatedly denied that it tries to maximize users’ engagement on its platforms over safeguarding their wellbeing. In the past weeks, both Zuckerberg and Instagram CEO Adam Mosseri testified that building platforms that users enjoy and feel good on is in their long-term interest, and that’s what drives their decisions.

Boland disputes this. “My experience was that when there were opportunities to really try to understand what the products might be doing harmfully in the world, that those were not the priority,” he testified. “Those were more of a problem than an opportunity to fix.”

When safety issues came up through press reports or regulatory questions, Boland said, “the primary response was to figure out how to manage through the press cycle, to what the media was saying, as opposed to saying, ‘let’s take a step back and really deeply understand.” Though Boland said he told his advertising-focused team that they should be the ones to discover “broken parts,” rather than those outside the company, he said that philosophy didn’t extend to the rest of the company.

On the stand the day before, Zuckerberg pointed to documents around 2019 showing disagreement among his employees with his decisions, saying they demonstrated a culture that encourages a diversity of opinion. Boland, however, testified that while that might have been the case earlier in his tenure, it later became “a very closed down culture.”

Since the jury can only consider decisions and products that Meta itself made, rather than content it hosted from users, lead plaintiff attorney Mark Lanier also had Boland describe how Meta’s algorithm works, and the decisions that went into making and testing it. Algorithms have an “immense amount of power,” Boland said, and are “absolutely relentless” in pursuing their programmed goals — in many cases at Meta, that was allegedly engagement. “There’s not a moral algorithm, that’s not a thing,” Boland said. “Doesn’t eat, doesn’t sleep, doesn’t care.”

During his testimony on Wednesday, Zuckerberg commented that Boland “developed some strong political opinions” toward the end of his time at the company. (Neither Zuckerberg nor Boland offered specifics, but in a 2025 blog post, Boland indicated he was deleting his Facebook account in part over disagreements with how Meta handled events like January 6th, writing that he believed “Facebook had contributed to spreading ‘Stop the Steal’ propaganda and enabling this attempted coup.”) Lanier spent time establishing that Boland was respected by peers, showing a CNBC article about his departure that quoted a glowing statement from his then-boss, and a reference to an unnamed source who reportedly described Boland as someone with a strong moral character.

On cross examination, Meta attorney Phyllis Jones clarified that Boland didn’t work on the teams tasked with understanding youth safety at the company. Boland agreed that advertising business models are not inherently bad, and neither are algorithms. He also admitted that many of his concerns involved the content users were posting, which is not relevant to the current case.

During his direct examination, Lanier asked if Boland had ever expressed his concerns to Zuckerberg directly. Boland said he’d told the CEO he’d seen concerning data showing “harmful outcomes” of the company’s algorithms and suggested that they investigate further. He recalled Zuckerberg responding something to the effect of, “I hope there’s still things you’re proud of.” Soon after, he said, he quit.

Boland said he left upwards of $10 million worth of unvested Meta stock on the table when he departed, though he admitted he made more than that over the years. He said he still finds it “nerve-wracking” every time he speaks out about the company. “This is an incredibly powerful company,” he said.

Hello and welcome to Regulator, a newsletter for Verge subscribers about the love-hate (but mostly hate) relationship between Silicon Valley and Washington. I hope everyone got to celebrate George Washington’s birthday in their preferred manner: skiing, staycationing, subscribing to The Verge if you haven’t already, etc.

Prediction: this is going to be a mess

Political alliances are rarely permanent, so it’s somewhat predictable that the MAGA-tech bro alliance seems to have fallen apart in the span of a single year. Which side the administration would actually choose, though, was more difficult to foresee.

Last winter, it appeared that two groups were in a tenuous relationship, held together by Elon Musk’s shameless execution of the DOGE agenda and Big Tech signing massive checks to settle Donald Trump’s lawsuits against them. But last night, the Trump administration made a choice: the money. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced that they would sue any state who tried to regulate prediction markets like Kalshi — even the Republican states.

On Tuesday, the CFTC filed an amicus brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, officially opposing an onslaught of lawsuits filed by the states against betting markets like Kalshi, Polymarket, Coinbase, and Crypto.com. (The latter two, known primarily as cryptocurrency exchanges, have partnered with Kalshi and created a standalone prediction market called OG, respectively.) But unusually, the brief was accompanied by a threat — posted on X, of all places. In a video directly facing the camera posted on Tuesday night, sole CFTC chairman Michael Selig asserted his commission’s authority to regulate prediction markets and stated that the federal government was prepared to sue: “To those who seek to challenge our authority in this space, let me be clear: we will see you in court.”

Had Selig simply written a staid Wall Street Journal op-ed asserting the CFTC’s authority (which he also did), that would have barely raised an eyebrow. But in 2026, a video threat, especially one posted on X, is basically grounds to instigate a political firestorm — one that Spencer Cox, the Republican Governor of Utah, gladly kindled. “Mike, I appreciate you attempting this with a straight face, but I don’t remember the CFTC having authority over the ‘derivative market’ of LeBron James rebounds,” he posted in response (also on X). “These prediction markets you are breathlessly defending are gambling—pure and simple. They are destroying the lives of families and countless Americans, especially young men. They have no place in Utah.” He promised that Utah would continue to pursue litigation and beat the federal government in court if need be.

This wouldn’t be the first time that Utah and Cox have voiced their opposition to federal overreach regarding emerging technology. Last year, they publicly opposed an executive order that would have given the Justice Department the power to sue states passing and enforcing AI regulatory laws. The prediction markets issue hits a particular nerve in Utah: nearly half of the state is Mormon, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially opposes all government-sanctioned forms of gambling, even state lotteries. But Cox’s declaration is what’s known in political circles as a “weathervane”: if one deeply Republican state is pushing back against the Trump administration on a new front, who else on the right might follow suit — and what sorts of new broligarch technologies would they fight against?

Is it a coincidence that Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s big visit to Washington happened just as the Pentagon was reconsidering its relationship with the AI company? Over the past two weeks, Amodei published a 38-page letter to Congress warning of the rising existential risks of artificial intelligence, conducted an interview with Axios’s Mike Allen (and sponsored their newsletter), and met with Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Jim Banks (R-IN) on Capitol Hill to support their bill banning the sale of advanced AI chips to China.

But Amodei barely finished his capitol blitz when Axios broke the news over the weekend that the Pentagon wasn’t just impatient with Anthropic’s reticence to use Claude for unrestricted purposes, but that it would actively punish Anthropic for refusing to cooperate by designating them a “supply-chain risk.” If it goes through, any company that wants to work with the military would have to cut ties with Anthropic. As one Pentagon official described it, “It will be an enormous pain in the ass to disentangle, and we are going to make sure they pay a price for forcing our hand like this.”

The Pentagon’s move makes no sense for anyone who sees Claude as a superior AI enterprise product to its competitors at the Pentagon (Gemini, ChatGPT, and Grok). If viewed through the lens of every former interaction that Trump’s had with companies that voiced ideological opposition to his agenda however, their treatment of Anthropic is par for the course. Years ago, for instance, Trump threatened to cut off Amazon’s access to their sweetheart deal with the US Postal Service, in retaliation for Jeff Bezos’ ownership of the then highly critical Washington Post.

But for me, the question is: exactly what caused the ideological break, and how much of it was even about national security? In the past few months, there’s been a bizarre spurt of online messaging from right-wing influencers trying to claim that Anthropic, of all the AI companies, was too woke — the kind of woke that could convince kids to become trans, or DEI-pill them, or whatever lib-coded nightmares a MAGA personality could dream up. There wasn’t much proof that they could point to, other than its employees expressing opinions that could be lib-coded, if you’re not fully reading the entire tweet:

Speaking of influencers eating their own:

The White House is convening a third meeting between the crypto industry and the banking industry this week, continuing to hash out which major financial entity gets to reap the interests from yield-bearing stablecoin accounts (or if they get to bear interest at all). They have until March 1st to deliver draft language for the Senate. Good luck, y’all!

And finally, looksmaxxing Recess.

Can we all agree that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy is framemogging Kid Rock in this video?

See you next week, and send all tips to every way that we list here.