5 ms·

Clickbait. I think the actual story was already posted a few days back. I'm pretty sure tabbaco has killed a few more people than Facebook, so this is a ridicu

Clickbait. I think the actual story was already posted a few days back. I'm pretty sure tabbaco has killed a few more people than Facebook, so this is a ridiculous comparison. Facebook does a lot for which it should be criticized, but it feels like we're just beating on a dead horse. It's also hilarious that someone would be so critical of Facebook all while including their share button in the same article. Apparently they're evil, but not evil enough to stop using their service. I think that says a lot about the author.

crunchlibrarian 8y ago
It's a link to a commentary podcast, not sure which "actual story" you're referencing but there have been several negative stories about Facebook which they talk through and that's kind of the point of the podcast.
smt88 8y ago
Tobacco has killed more people so far. Facebook accepted a lot of money to help Trump win, so if he were to start a war or something, I think the blood would also be on Facebook's hands. Climate change is a whole other issue with him, though less direct. Also, I understand the headline to be a comparison of tactics, not of harm. And as for the share button, writers don't make their site's templates.
- dontreact 8y ago
  Facebook accepted more money from the Clinton campaign though right?
  - smt88 8y ago
    If she had won, people gave her FB strategy (and Russia) credit for her victory, and she started a war, I'd say the same thing about her. Helping a politician who ends up killing people is arguably helping to kill those people, whether you're a voter or an ad firm or IBM in the 40s.
    - dontreact 8y ago
      “People gave credit for” What should the standard of proof be for accusing an organization of “helping to kill”? Have we met that with Facebook?
xfitm3 8y ago
> I'm pretty sure tabbaco has killed a few more people than Facebook, so this is a ridiculous comparison. There are worse outcomes than death.
- fipple 8y ago
  Like having a shadow profile on Facebook.
- tomhoward 8y ago
  Technically true, but smoking-related illness can be one of the more horrible ways to go.
lallysingh 8y ago
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... I don't think it's that far apart.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  It's pretty far apart to be honest. What FB and Suu Kyi do in Myanmar is terrible, but they would have to replicate the same genocide in every nation across the globe to match the body count of the tobacco guys. (Which they may manage to do in the future. Who knows? But to date they are just not there yet to be perfectly frank.)
  - austenallred 8y ago
    It really doesn’t make sense to me that the argument is basically this: “The x military shared anti-y Facebook posts, then caused a genocide of the y people.” And Facebook is at fault? Do we really expect Facebook to police speech at that level, or should we not place the blame with the military? Those posts came from .0000066% of Facebook’s users. If you’re Facebook how do you effectively police that?
    - lallysingh 8y ago
      Hey those kids chose to smoke those Camels! How's the cigarette company responsible?
      - austenallred 8y ago
        You really don’t see any difference there?
        lallysingh 8y ago
        Children and militaries will act predictably. How Facebook reacts is the variable under question.
chillacy 8y ago
> Oh, my God. Using an Android phone is like paying for dinner with a Discover card. It’s like saying, “Don’t have sex with me.” It’s the ultimate prophylactic that says “I should be ...” > “I should be screened out of the gene pool.” If you use an Android phone or have a Discover card, your family tree should come to an end. Yea I’m gonna go with purposefully inciting reactions online for more clicks.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

crunchlibrarian 8y ago

It's a link to a commentary podcast, not sure which "actual story" you're referencing but there have been several negative stories about Facebook which they talk through and that's kind of the point of the podcast.

smt88 8y ago

Tobacco has killed more people so far. Facebook accepted a lot of money to help Trump win, so if he were to start a war or something, I think the blood would also be on Facebook's hands. Climate change is a whole other issue with him, though less direct. Also, I understand the headline to be a comparison of tactics, not of harm. And as for the share button, writers don't make their site's templates.

dontreact 8y ago
Facebook accepted more money from the Clinton campaign though right?
- smt88 8y ago
  If she had won, people gave her FB strategy (and Russia) credit for her victory, and she started a war, I'd say the same thing about her. Helping a politician who ends up killing people is arguably helping to kill those people, whether you're a voter or an ad firm or IBM in the 40s.
  - dontreact 8y ago
    “People gave credit for” What should the standard of proof be for accusing an organization of “helping to kill”? Have we met that with Facebook?

xfitm3 8y ago

> I'm pretty sure tabbaco has killed a few more people than Facebook, so this is a ridiculous comparison. There are worse outcomes than death.

fipple 8y ago
Like having a shadow profile on Facebook.
tomhoward 8y ago
Technically true, but smoking-related illness can be one of the more horrible ways to go.

lallysingh 8y ago

> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebo... I don't think it's that far apart.

bilbo0s 8y ago
It's pretty far apart to be honest. What FB and Suu Kyi do in Myanmar is terrible, but they would have to replicate the same genocide in every nation across the globe to match the body count of the tobacco guys. (Which they may manage to do in the future. Who knows? But to date they are just not there yet to be perfectly frank.)
- austenallred 8y ago
  It really doesn’t make sense to me that the argument is basically this: “The x military shared anti-y Facebook posts, then caused a genocide of the y people.” And Facebook is at fault? Do we really expect Facebook to police speech at that level, or should we not place the blame with the military? Those posts came from .0000066% of Facebook’s users. If you’re Facebook how do you effectively police that?
  - lallysingh 8y ago
    Hey those kids chose to smoke those Camels! How's the cigarette company responsible?
    - austenallred 8y ago
      You really don’t see any difference there?
      - lallysingh 8y ago
        Children and militaries will act predictably. How Facebook reacts is the variable under question.

chillacy 8y ago

> Oh, my God. Using an Android phone is like paying for dinner with a Discover card. It’s like saying, “Don’t have sex with me.” It’s the ultimate prophylactic that says “I should be ...” > “I should be screened out of the gene pool.” If you use an Android phone or have a Discover card, your family tree should come to an end. Yea I’m gonna go with purposefully inciting reactions online for more clicks.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]