> Of course we don't want social media enabling that. Eliding that it not only "enables" it in a binary way, but also "enables" it in a that creates exponentia

> Of course we don't want social media enabling that. Eliding that it not only "enables" it in a binary way, but also "enables" it in a that creates exponential reach and growth of the market. This explosive mechanic is one of the things implies by the phrase, "tech boom." Your response reduces social media's role to a one-sentence hand-wave. > The solution isn't to take down the posts, but to alert law enforcement. Is your point that you can't do the latter if you do the former? Because that's not the case in any way. > These governments should be urged to find and arrest the people who are doing this, otherwise it won't stop even if blocked. You're _technically_ right in the very narrow sense that there will likely still be some kind of market for chattel slavery even without Instagram. But again you are minimizing Instagram's (I'm using Instagram as a stand-in for all the companies involved) role and responsibilities in this situation for some reason. When we talk about these companies we use phrasing like, "huge tech platforms," "tech giants," etc. To my mind you are defending these "tech behemoths" from the very idea of public accountability. The response to the question you raise of government & law enforcement enforcing the law is so obvious it barely merits response, but: yes, obviously the government should govern and law enforcement should enforce the law. Bringing it up at all seems to me like another deflection away from "Instagram"'s responsibilities in governance on & public accountability for their platforms.