2 ms·
Before everyone brings their torch and pitchfork, do we know how much harm is being done on open sharing platforms vs the value they bring to society? I see p
by d1zzy 8y ago
Before everyone brings their torch and pitchfork, do we know how much harm is being done on open sharing platforms vs the value they bring to society?
I see people quickly jumping on the "stop the internet open sharing platforms" bandwagon when events like these happen, because the platform may be associated with the current "cultural villain" but just as we don't ban knives when they are used to murder people and are being produced by despicable companies I don't think we should ban the possibility of having open sharing platforms until we have determined they do more bad than good.
Food for thought: in administrative decisions on improving car infrastructure/safety of intersections there is an actual value assigned human life. If the cost to build the improvements is less than the human life valuation of the lives that would be saved by the improvements then the project is not done. It's terrible to think of human lives as numbers but it is a requirement to do so for deciding policy in a world of inherent costs to anything being done. So before we think about advancing policy changes with far ranging impact, we should perform such an analysis. We may also realize at that point that alternative solutions may prove far cheaper than banning open sharing platforms or regulating them to the point where business is so expensive nobody cares to do so.
- xvector 8y agoI think your comparison is a bit disingenuous. Knives are a necessity. Live Facebook broadcasts are not.
- save_ferris 8y agoI'm not sure how such an analysis would work in this case for a few reasons. First, users don't pay to use Facebook, so the financial incentives are completely reversed from a car company that might be putting out defective cars. Second, Facebook isn't controversial because it makes defective products; it's controversial because of how the software works as designed. It's designed to maximize engagement, harvest user data, and display ads. Third, what is the material value that Facebook provides? At least with a car, you can pretty easily determine its value by looking at how it helps you increase your economic potential (i.e. getting you to work.) What's Facebook's true value to its users? Fourth, Facebook has been featured in headlines that few private companies have ever been in. The UN determined that Facebook played a "determining role" in the genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar[0]. How exactly does one calculate the value of a human life vs the value that Facebook provides in that instance? Is it really so crazy to argue that companies that catalyze genocide perhaps shouldn't exist? People were ripped from their homes and brutally murdered in the streets because of what people were posting and reading on Facebook. Facebook eventually killed the entire Internet.org project. They got caught doing emotional manipulation research without the approval of the APA, they've faced salvo after salvo for their conduct in a variety of areas ranging from user privacy, election manipulation and illegal foreign campaigning, paying young users to to use intentionally monitored VPNs to gather data. The list goes on and on. [0]: https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-problem https://newrepublic.com/article/147486/facebook-genocide-pro...