4 ms·

They created a product that is making the world worse. I want them to answer for that just like I want cigarette and oil companies to answer for their products

They created a product that is making the world worse. I want them to answer for that just like I want cigarette and oil companies to answer for their products that make the world worse.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
They created a product which allows people to stay in touch and communicate and organize with others. I can fix things with a screwdriver, or I can hurt someone. I can run over someone with a car, or I can use it to go to work. Things have pros and cons, and when the cons outweigh the pros perhaps action must be taken. But in this case, the people spreading the disinformation are to blame.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  But this isn't like that. This is like seeing a road hazard that will hurt other people, but instead of doing anything about it - not even calling someone else to take care of it - you just ignore it and drive the other way. Seriously, they will punish an account for a nipple and do it even faster for frontal nudity, and it doesn't matter how tasteful the art is. They refuse adverts if they show "too much skin" (uncovered shoulders hinting at possible nudity). I'm pretty sure they can take these sorts of posts and pages down - or at least work towards taking them down.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    That’s their perogative for doing what’s good for their ad business. The real responsibility is with holding our leaders responsible for promoting the funding, transparency, and credibility of organizations such as the FDA and CDC, and educating people in the scientific method in general. Instead we elect people who demean the very scientists working hard to protect our society.
    - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
      Now, I do agree that part of the responsibility is holding our leaders responsible, and it saddens me that we elect in such a way. This doesn't excuse facebook, however. This isn't just their ad business I'm speaking of - I was merely pointing out that suggestive paintings are too much. Pointing out they punish artists that paint tasteful nudes. Historical photos are a grey area, and it has taken heads of states speaking out for those to be reinstated. These are merely normal people's posts. Yet allowing posts that harm others and entire groups that do the same? Yup, allowed. Because they choose to allow such posts, they share responsibility. They choose to turn a blind eye to anti-vax groups and the like.
      - _Schizotypy 8y ago
        This is interesting to me, historical semi nude portraits are okay but recent ones are not? So old things are accepting? What does age matter, I don't see it making that much of a difference in reality
        Broken_Hippo 8y ago
        Soemtimes historical semi-nudes are OK, and sometimes new ones are. Sometimes, however, they are not. Folks have a lot of trouble trying to tell what will get them kicked from facebook. As far as photos are concerned, age and "famous" do, indeed, matter. The "napalm girl" picture was banned for nudity - even when a head of state sent it out. Facebook said it would allow "historically important" works, but it still lies in a grey area. I highly doubt a new work of equal cultural importance could be posted today.
  - hackerbabz 8y ago
    Except it's more like building the road hazard yourself and blaming people for crashing into it.

They created a product that is making the world worse. I want them to answer for that just like I want cigarette and oil companies to answer for their products that make the world worse.

lotsofpulp 8y ago

They created a product which allows people to stay in touch and communicate and organize with others. I can fix things with a screwdriver, or I can hurt someone. I can run over someone with a car, or I can use it to go to work. Things have pros and cons, and when the cons outweigh the pros perhaps action must be taken. But in this case, the people spreading the disinformation are to blame.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
But this isn't like that. This is like seeing a road hazard that will hurt other people, but instead of doing anything about it - not even calling someone else to take care of it - you just ignore it and drive the other way. Seriously, they will punish an account for a nipple and do it even faster for frontal nudity, and it doesn't matter how tasteful the art is. They refuse adverts if they show "too much skin" (uncovered shoulders hinting at possible nudity). I'm pretty sure they can take these sorts of posts and pages down - or at least work towards taking them down.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  That’s their perogative for doing what’s good for their ad business. The real responsibility is with holding our leaders responsible for promoting the funding, transparency, and credibility of organizations such as the FDA and CDC, and educating people in the scientific method in general. Instead we elect people who demean the very scientists working hard to protect our society.
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    Now, I do agree that part of the responsibility is holding our leaders responsible, and it saddens me that we elect in such a way. This doesn't excuse facebook, however. This isn't just their ad business I'm speaking of - I was merely pointing out that suggestive paintings are too much. Pointing out they punish artists that paint tasteful nudes. Historical photos are a grey area, and it has taken heads of states speaking out for those to be reinstated. These are merely normal people's posts. Yet allowing posts that harm others and entire groups that do the same? Yup, allowed. Because they choose to allow such posts, they share responsibility. They choose to turn a blind eye to anti-vax groups and the like.
    - _Schizotypy 8y ago
      This is interesting to me, historical semi nude portraits are okay but recent ones are not? So old things are accepting? What does age matter, I don't see it making that much of a difference in reality
      - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
        Soemtimes historical semi-nudes are OK, and sometimes new ones are. Sometimes, however, they are not. Folks have a lot of trouble trying to tell what will get them kicked from facebook. As far as photos are concerned, age and "famous" do, indeed, matter. The "napalm girl" picture was banned for nudity - even when a head of state sent it out. Facebook said it would allow "historically important" works, but it still lies in a grey area. I highly doubt a new work of equal cultural importance could be posted today.
- hackerbabz 8y ago
  Except it's more like building the road hazard yourself and blaming people for crashing into it.