> Social media companies aren't messengers mate They're closer to a messenger than an accomplice. > They are machines that optimise controlling your attention

> Social media companies aren't messengers mate They're closer to a messenger than an accomplice. > They are machines that optimise controlling your attention to show you ads so they can make money. Who came up with that line? They definitely don't control my attention. Could it be that they just optimize capturing the attention of those who would otherwise consume other forms of digital media? > Also it is clearly fallacious to assume that the downward trend in violence is some kind of force of nature that... I never said it was, but a knee-jerk reaction to an anomalous event like this is obviously ignorant of trends. "Crazy people" (deemed by whatever "sane" minority) will always be connected/have the ability to connect provided they haven't already committed acts of violence and are locked away. Sure you can make it harder for them by enlisting private entities, but that undermines the market and places undue liability on the participants. This is all blame shifting anyway. Why isn't the government held accountable here for allowing "crazy people" to be on the streets? Just think of all the things that can be used as a weapon!