5 ms·

> It’s a bit like blaming the scientists of the Manhattan Project for dropping the atomic bomb. I'm the last one to defend Facebook here but I don't see how de

> It’s a bit like blaming the scientists of the Manhattan Project for dropping the atomic bomb. I'm the last one to defend Facebook here but I don't see how designing an atomic bomb is comparable to working for Facebook, regardless of what you think about the morality of each.

about_help 8y ago
It is an extreme example to illustrate the point, not a direct comparison of FB to atomic bombs. However, one might argue that FB is actually worse. It is hard to quantify widespread societal effects and determine if they would have occurred through other channels. The massive privacy violations across the world through FB is another item that is hard to quantify yet 100% morally wrong.
- bootlooped 8y ago
  I don't think it would be a very persuasive argument. Atomic bombs have some easily quantifiable negatives, for example $5+ trillion spent on nuclear arms in the US alone, and ~200,000 mostly civilians killed. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/costs-us-nuclear-weapons/ https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/costs-us-nuclear-weapo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Just because something can’t be tied to “people died” does not make it a positive for society. Things like censorship and tracking don’t have clear and immediate negative externalities, but they are clearly wrong and they can enable other, worse things.
    - bootlooped 8y ago
      "Just because something can’t be tied to “people died” does not make it a positive for society." I never asserted that Facebook was a positive for society, neither here nor ever in my life. I'm just saying it's a very steep uphill climb to make a convincing argument that it's worse than something that directly caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and cost trillions of dollars.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    The atomic bombs were dropped as a result of a dangerous political movement gaining power in Germany. That's the sort of thing people are upset about Facebook enabling now.
sjg007 8y ago
Facebook basically fueled a genocide in Myanmar and extreme violence in other places. The whole fake news thing we went through in 2016 was pioneered by Russia to annex Ukraine. Facebook was warned about these behaviors repeatedly by government and watchdog organizations and apparently did nothing to curtail them. So Facebook is this great tool to stay connected to people but at the same time it has been hijacked to cause real harm.
- gaius 8y ago
  Facebook basically fueled a genocide in Myanmar and extreme violence in other places. If we widen the definition slightly to include other social media firms then the most recent phase of chaos in the Middle East (post "Arab Spring") and the rise of ISIS can directly be blamed on FB and Twitter.

about_help 8y ago

It is an extreme example to illustrate the point, not a direct comparison of FB to atomic bombs. However, one might argue that FB is actually worse. It is hard to quantify widespread societal effects and determine if they would have occurred through other channels. The massive privacy violations across the world through FB is another item that is hard to quantify yet 100% morally wrong.

bootlooped 8y ago
I don't think it would be a very persuasive argument. Atomic bombs have some easily quantifiable negatives, for example $5+ trillion spent on nuclear arms in the US alone, and ~200,000 mostly civilians killed. https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/costs-us-nuclear-weapons/ https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/costs-us-nuclear-weapo... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Just because something can’t be tied to “people died” does not make it a positive for society. Things like censorship and tracking don’t have clear and immediate negative externalities, but they are clearly wrong and they can enable other, worse things.
  - bootlooped 8y ago
    "Just because something can’t be tied to “people died” does not make it a positive for society." I never asserted that Facebook was a positive for society, neither here nor ever in my life. I'm just saying it's a very steep uphill climb to make a convincing argument that it's worse than something that directly caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and cost trillions of dollars.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  The atomic bombs were dropped as a result of a dangerous political movement gaining power in Germany. That's the sort of thing people are upset about Facebook enabling now.

sjg007 8y ago

Facebook basically fueled a genocide in Myanmar and extreme violence in other places. The whole fake news thing we went through in 2016 was pioneered by Russia to annex Ukraine. Facebook was warned about these behaviors repeatedly by government and watchdog organizations and apparently did nothing to curtail them. So Facebook is this great tool to stay connected to people but at the same time it has been hijacked to cause real harm.

gaius 8y ago
Facebook basically fueled a genocide in Myanmar and extreme violence in other places. If we widen the definition slightly to include other social media firms then the most recent phase of chaos in the Middle East (post "Arab Spring") and the rise of ISIS can directly be blamed on FB and Twitter.