3 ms·

One wonders if anyone got value from it. Many realize the ratio of negative articles to positive ones regarding Facebook domestically far outweighs the ratio of

One wonders if anyone got value from it. Many realize the ratio of negative articles to positive ones regarding Facebook domestically far outweighs the ratio of negativity to positivity in people's lives (maybe not most here, but in general). I personally feel like I'd be someone unfamiliar with a situation looking down and judging all peoples of a society as too irresponsible for Facebook, so I don't. If anything, I think Facebook would be wise to temper growth as it is guaranteed that no matter what happens, there is no outlet for it to be seen as a positive by anyone whether it is or not. (not completely excusing FB here, just not sure they are more complicit than any other messenger...I see too few articles suggesting action taken against the message senders)

bilbo0s 8y ago
The previous junta in Myanmar would definitely have silenced the message senders. (And the people committing the violence. And likely any people who agreed with the people committing the violence. And probably their families just to be sure. Etc etc etc. It wasn't a fun time to be a hater in Myanmar.) Point is, the previous "government" kept more control over this sort of violence and hatred, BUT... they did so at the barrel of a gun. What was the cost there? (Does the cost even matter in view of the fact that we can now see that they did save tens of thousands of lives? All really tough moral and ethical questions.) What's disheartening to me is the fact that, it seems that humans haven't evolved past that. The only demonstrably effective method of controlling this sort of tribalism, seems to be at the barrel of a gun.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > humans haven't evolved past that As long as there is scarcity, it will be game theoretically efficient to form violently competitive in and out groups. That said, cynicism is misplaced. We are in a centuries-long progression of falling per-capita rates of violent death. Perpetuating that virtuous spiral is our tendency to shame, as this article goes, enablers of violence.

bilbo0s 8y ago

The previous junta in Myanmar would definitely have silenced the message senders. (And the people committing the violence. And likely any people who agreed with the people committing the violence. And probably their families just to be sure. Etc etc etc. It wasn't a fun time to be a hater in Myanmar.) Point is, the previous "government" kept more control over this sort of violence and hatred, BUT... they did so at the barrel of a gun. What was the cost there? (Does the cost even matter in view of the fact that we can now see that they did save tens of thousands of lives? All really tough moral and ethical questions.) What's disheartening to me is the fact that, it seems that humans haven't evolved past that. The only demonstrably effective method of controlling this sort of tribalism, seems to be at the barrel of a gun.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> humans haven't evolved past that As long as there is scarcity, it will be game theoretically efficient to form violently competitive in and out groups. That said, cynicism is misplaced. We are in a centuries-long progression of falling per-capita rates of violent death. Perpetuating that virtuous spiral is our tendency to shame, as this article goes, enablers of violence.