4 ms·

I don't work at FB and wouldn't (nor do I even have an account), but even I can recognize that to many the benefits of FB outweigh the negatives. In a tech-cent

I don't work at FB and wouldn't (nor do I even have an account), but even I can recognize that to many the benefits of FB outweigh the negatives. In a tech-centric board such as this one coupled with media/government-driven narratives to the contrary, it can appear to be obvious that there are way more negatives than positives, the world would be better w/out FB, and you should quit. But in a non-tech-environment the view is sometimes the complete opposite, and people just can't fathom why people want to use FB (as opposed to them being "forced" due to network effects and lack of alternatives). This is a microcosm of our political environment where when one subjectively determines the weight of harm, they attempt to objectively apply it to others. Sure, FB does immoral things. But why can't we simply recognize that people disagree about whether harm exists, whether value exists, and what weights are applied to each? As you say, this is not clear good vs bad, this is some good vs some bad and at what levels.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
This is a microcosm of our political environment where when one subjectively determines the weight of harm, they attempt to objectively apply it to others. Sure, FB does immoral things. But why can't we simply recognize that people disagree about whether harm exists, whether value exists, and what weights are applied to each? This is a really important point. Political movements often attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a differing value system, but that doesn't rile up your base like proclaiming the other side is evil. I should remember this myself :)
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Political movements often attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a differing value system Evil is only meaningful in the context of a value system. Malice is will for things which are evil. Valuing something positively is willing for it to transpire. Valuing something negatively is seeing it as evil. Valuing something positively that others value negatively is, therefore, exactly malice in the context of the others’ value system (it's not wrongly attributed to malice.)
trasz 8y ago
>I don't work at FB and wouldn't (nor do I even have an account) Sure you have, you just have the ability to log in. ;-)

ryanwaggoner 8y ago

This is a microcosm of our political environment where when one subjectively determines the weight of harm, they attempt to objectively apply it to others. Sure, FB does immoral things. But why can't we simply recognize that people disagree about whether harm exists, whether value exists, and what weights are applied to each? This is a really important point. Political movements often attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a differing value system, but that doesn't rile up your base like proclaiming the other side is evil. I should remember this myself :)

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Political movements often attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by a differing value system Evil is only meaningful in the context of a value system. Malice is will for things which are evil. Valuing something positively is willing for it to transpire. Valuing something negatively is seeing it as evil. Valuing something positively that others value negatively is, therefore, exactly malice in the context of the others’ value system (it's not wrongly attributed to malice.)

trasz 8y ago

>I don't work at FB and wouldn't (nor do I even have an account) Sure you have, you just have the ability to log in. ;-)