3 ms·

Facebook can take a hard ethical stance against allowing teens on the platform. Or, they could add a simple "if" statement on age, and not allow teens to be tar

by jquast 8y ago

Facebook can take a hard ethical stance against allowing teens on the platform. Or, they could add a simple "if" statement on age, and not allow teens to be targeted for advertising. Instead, they chose to implement the minimum legal requirements of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which prevents companies from collecting certain information from kids under 13, and kids who are under 13 just lie about their age. Facebook has really good data, collected for advertising, to know that kids are signing in, and do not make an effort to stop it, beyond a stern "Don't lie to us" phrasing in their TOS. I think the point made here, especially with Disneyland, Candy, and Television is that children are targeted and manipulated for profiteering. And that's surprisingly legal. But it is not ethical. Each company has a choice. I hope public opinion will see FB as unethical and unforgivable in the future.

aylmao 8y ago
CocaCola can take a hard ethical stance against diabetes. It is one of the deadliest diseases in the world. They could add a disclaimer to their bottles the way tobacco companies are obliged to warn about the effects of long-term smoking. Instead, they chose to implement the minimum legal requirements set by the FDA with a tiny number on tucked-away table. CocaCola has really good data on how much sugar their drinks have and they do not make an effort to really surface it to people assuming they are acting in their own interest, will read the label, and that will be enough to deter them from drinking a third can. And the same can be said about pretty much any other company. They all implement "the bare minimum" required by law if it potentially affects their numbers. > I think the point made here, especially with Disneyland, Candy, and Television is that children are targeted and manipulated for profiteering. And that's surprisingly legal. Yes, but is it that surprising? We can't expect companies to regulate themselves. > But it is not ethical. Each company has a choice. I hope public opinion will see FB as unethical and unforgivable in the future. I agree, though I also think Facebook is a much lesser concern than other companies out there. That's not to say it should be put to the side or nothing can be done before something is done about big Tobacco, big Pharma or even big Sugar. I just think comparing it to a drug company is disingenuous, and lessens the urgency of dealing with companies dealing with proven, dangerous physical addiction.

by jquast 8y ago

aylmao 8y ago

CocaCola can take a hard ethical stance against diabetes. It is one of the deadliest diseases in the world. They could add a disclaimer to their bottles the way tobacco companies are obliged to warn about the effects of long-term smoking. Instead, they chose to implement the minimum legal requirements set by the FDA with a tiny number on tucked-away table. CocaCola has really good data on how much sugar their drinks have and they do not make an effort to really surface it to people assuming they are acting in their own interest, will read the label, and that will be enough to deter them from drinking a third can. And the same can be said about pretty much any other company. They all implement "the bare minimum" required by law if it potentially affects their numbers. > I think the point made here, especially with Disneyland, Candy, and Television is that children are targeted and manipulated for profiteering. And that's surprisingly legal. Yes, but is it that surprising? We can't expect companies to regulate themselves. > But it is not ethical. Each company has a choice. I hope public opinion will see FB as unethical and unforgivable in the future. I agree, though I also think Facebook is a much lesser concern than other companies out there. That's not to say it should be put to the side or nothing can be done before something is done about big Tobacco, big Pharma or even big Sugar. I just think comparing it to a drug company is disingenuous, and lessens the urgency of dealing with companies dealing with proven, dangerous physical addiction.