I'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

I'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...