"In Sri Lanka, it keeps families in touch even as many work abroad." "It provides for unprecedented open expression and access to information." "But where ins

"In Sri Lanka, it keeps families in touch even as many work abroad." "It provides for unprecedented open expression and access to information." "But where institutions are weak or undeveloped, Facebook's newsfeed can inadvertently amplify dangerous tendencies. Designed to maximize user time on site, it promotes whatever wins the most attention. Posts that tap into negative, primal emotions like anger or fear, studies have found, produce the highest engagement, and so proliferate." What if there were applications or websites that allowed families to keep in touch even as many work abroad. [There are.] What if there was a computer network that provided access to information. [There is.] What if the computer network provided for open expression. [It does.] What if the problem is none of the above. What if the problem is "Facebook newsfeed" that serves no justifiable purpose other than to "to maximize user time on [a single web]site" where family member behaviour is recorded and family members are easily targeted by advertisers who pay the owner of the website for this "service". Who conducted the studies re: primal emotions. Has Facebook conducted such studies. Do families need a "Facebook newsfeed" to keep in touch even as many work abroad? Does Facebook need a "newsfeed" and other tactics to keep family members on Mr. Zuckerberg's website longer than they need to be in order to keep in touch, so they will view/click more ads and generate more behavioural data. Are the needs of families and the needs of Facebook "aligned".