4 ms·
Is Facebook a net negative?
by 0-_-0 7y ago
Is Facebook a net negative?
- viklove 7y agoYes
- 0-_-0 7y ago2.7 Billion people disagree
- happytoexplain 7y agoThe notion that having a Facebook account means you think Facebook does not need regulating nor makes significant negative contributions to society seems absurd.
- 0-_-0 7y agoWhat made you think I think that?
- happytoexplain 7y agoCan you ask a more specific question? I don't have enough information about what part of the reply chain we have different interpretations of.
- rmilejczz 7y agoDo you think the most correct answer is the same as the loudest one? And besides, you can use Facebook and still believe it should be broken up, those aren’t mutually exclusive things.
- 0-_-0 7y agoSure, but I responded to: > Some people need to be told to stop creating what they create because it's a net negative. because I thought it was a bad argument, like most arguments here.
- untog 7y agoDo you think every Comcast subscriber loves their service?
- JohnFen 7y agoI guess that's the underlying question. In my view, it definitely is. Others may reasonably differ.
- happytoexplain 7y agoIn its current form, absolutely. That's not to say it needs to be destroyed.
- lidHanteyk 7y agoYes; they enabled the Rohingya genocide.
- 0-_-0 7y agoThey enabled communication, communication enabled the Rohingya genocide. Do you think communication is a net negative?
- happytoexplain 7y agoI don't think it's fair to hold a criticism of Facebook accountable to the terms that it be equally applicable to the abstract and more vast concept of "communication". Maybe the parent thinks Facebook had, or could have had with enough foresight, the technical capability to mitigate the issue more, but failed to act with such initiative or scale. That might reasonably be an argument for how Facebook is a "net negative", even though the concept of ever freer, wider, and frictionless communication is not necessarily a "net negative".