I believe the distinction is this: primitive influences on behavior through culturization happen because you experience and do things with other people. Being programmed by Facebook is different: you are posting things and getting feedback in the form of likes which boosts dopamine and you end up in a vortex of false gratification and false relationships and false experiences. It's about attention and the need for hormonal drugs, not about the actual experience or person.
How can I put this into better words? Maybe an analogy from the inventor of Twitter and Medium:
Social media/the internet is like a simple AI that gives you more of what you like. Now, imagine you see a car crash and you look, along with everyone else--you all stop to look. It's natural, it's inescapable. The internet notices this behavior and decides that humans want more car crashes--so it tries to supply more car crashes.
That's the kind of programming we're talking about. Humans are vulnerable and have psychological weaknesses. Social media is tailored to attack certain weaknesses because it's lucrative in an attention economy where advertisements = $$.
Wonderfully said. Though, I think Facebook's efforts this quarter are worthwhile. They have billions of users and a near unfathomable fraction of the world's people logged in. When they turn back the dials, are they really more likely to lose than to make a difference in the world?